Wikipedia talk:Vital articles/Level/4/Archive 59

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 55 ← Archive 57 Archive 58 Archive 59 Archive 60 Archive 61 → Archive 65

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

American activists

We should consider removing a few Americans as approximately 30.357% of the people in this section were American. ―Susmuffin Talk 18:52, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
2-5, not removed Gizza (t)(c) 04:08, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Remove Booker T. Washington

Approximately 30.357% of the people in this section were Americans from the 19th and 20th centuries. Booker T. Washington was the least important of the various American abolitionists/civil rights leaders that are presently listed. Also, he was less important than Marcus Garvey, who is not on this list.

Support
  1. Support I am the nominator. ―Susmuffin Talk 14:32, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
  2. Support --Thi (talk) 15:49, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose Between the times of Frederick Douglass and MLK, Washington was the most important African-American leader. If a swap is needed, W.E.B. DuBois would be more appropriate than Garvey. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 15:12, 7 July 2018 (UTC)
    1. @Presidentman:W. E. B. Du Bois is already listed.--RekishiEJ (talk) 17:53, 7 July 2018 (UTC)
  2. He greatly strengthend American Negroes' economic might.--RekishiEJ (talk) 17:53, 7 July 2018 (UTC)
    Calling African Americans "American Negroes" is generally considered to be offensive. ―Susmuffin Talk 18:00, 7 July 2018 (UTC)
    Unfortunately this isn't the first time Rekishi has used racist language on this page. He's been warned about it multiple times before. Gizza (t)(c) 12:14, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
  3. Oppose Washington's political and economic agendas had far-reeching consequences: "Washington repudiated the abolitionist emphasis on unceasing agitation for full equality, advising blacks that it was counterproductive to fight segregation at that point. Foner concludes that Washington's strong support in the black community was rooted in its widespread realization that frontal assaults on white supremacy were impossible, and the best way forward was to concentrate on building up the economic and social structures inside segregated communities. Historian C. Vann Woodward said of Washington, "The businessman's gospel of free enterprise, competition, and laissez faire never had a more loyal exponent." Dimadick (talk) 13:32, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
  4. Oppose - An effective leader and vital at L4. Jusdafax (talk) 22:38, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
  5. Oppose GuzzyG (talk) 08:39, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
Discuss
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
2-4, not removed Gizza (t)(c) 04:05, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Remove John Muir

Approximately 30.357% of the people in this section were Americans from the 19th and 20th centuries. John Muir seems to have been less influential than the other people in this section.

Support
  1. Support I am the nominator. ―Susmuffin Talk 16:55, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
  2. Support --Thi (talk) 17:21, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose We need an environmentalist. If Muir is not satisfactory, I would propose a swap with Rachel Carson, though I think Muir should stay. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 15:10, 7 July 2018 (UTC)
    Rachel Carson and for that matter, Jane Goodall are listed. So there are at least two environmentalists in addition to John Muir. Gizza (t)(c) 12:12, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
  2. Oppose - Muir set the tone for environmentalists in our time. A towering figure in his field. And I’d support adding Carson. Jusdafax (talk) 21:21, 7 July 2018 (UTC)
  3. Oppose Not influential? "Muir has been called the "patron saint of the American wilderness" and its "archetypal free spirit." As a dreamer and activist, his eloquent words changed the way Americans saw their mountains, forests, seashores, and deserts, said nature writer Gretel Ehrlich. He not only led the efforts to protect forest areas and have some designated as national parks, but his writings presented "human culture and wild nature as one of humility and respect for all life." Robert Underwood Johnson, editor of Century Magazine, which published many of Muir's articles, states that he influenced people's appreciation of nature and national parks, which became a lasting legacy: "The world will look back to the time we live in and remember the voice of one crying in the wilderness and bless the name of John Muir. . . . He sung the glory of nature like another Psalmist, and, as a true artist, was unashamed of his emotions. His countrymen owe him gratitude as the pioneer of our system of national parks. . . . Muir's writings and enthusiasm were the chief forces that inspired the movement. All the other torches were lighted from his." Dimadick (talk) 13:37, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
  4. Oppose GuzzyG (talk) 08:39, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
Discuss
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
PASSED
8–4, added. --Rreagan007 (talk) 16:54, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Add Jehovah's Witnesses

We list several religions that have less followers: The Druze, Jainism, the Bahá'í Faith, the Rastafari, Orthodox Judaism, Conservative Judaism, Reform Judaism, Quakers, Modern Paganism and Wicca.

Support
  1. Support I am the nominator. ―Susmuffin Talk 22:07, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
  2. Support  Carlwev  22:35, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
  3. Support It's a fairly distinct branch of Christianity. I think it's a large enough and distinct enough to justify adding it to the list. Rreagan007 (talk) 23:10, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
  4. Support A relatively successful new religious movement that is often in the news in connection with child sexual abuse. "The group's failure to report abuse allegations to authorities has also been criticized. The Watch Tower Society's policy is that elders inform authorities when required by law to do so, but otherwise leave that action up to the victim and his or her family. The Australian Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse found that of 1006 alleged perpetrators of child sexual abuse identified by the Jehovah's Witnesses within their organization since 1950, "not one was reported by the church to secular authorities." The Royal Commission also found that the Watch Tower Society legal department routinely provided incorrect information to elders based on an incorrect understanding about what constitutes a legal obligation to report crimes in Australia. William Bowen, a former Jehovah's Witness elder who established the Silentlambs organization to assist sex abuse victims within the denomination, has claimed Witness leaders discourage followers from reporting incidents of sexual misconduct to authorities, and other critics claim the organization is reluctant to alert authorities in order to protect its "crime-free" reputation. In court cases in the United Kingdom and the United States the Watch Tower Society has been found to have been negligent in its failure to protect children from known sex offenders within the congregation, and the Society has settled other child abuse lawsuits out of court, reportedly paying as much as $780,000 to one plaintiff without admitting wrongdoing." Dimadick (talk) 20:16, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
  5. Support Neljack (talk) 03:16, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
  6. Support power~enwiki (π, ν) 18:00, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
  7. --RekishiEJ (talk) 09:56, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
  8. feminist (talk) 16:04, 24 July 2018 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. We have Christianity already and more than enough of its branches and variants. And Druze should probably be removed, as should Quakers. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 23:05, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
  2. Oppose If I were to add another Christian denomination, I would add Greek Orthodox Church. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 16:20, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
  3. Weak oppose --Thi (talk) 16:53, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
  4. Oppose unless the religion quota increases which is arguable. I think the Jehovah's Witnesses have a similar level of notability to Scientology and the Hare Krishnas which were removed around four years ago. Gizza (t)(c) 03:46, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
Discuss
  • relatively young and small, but over 140 years history and 8 million followers, not that small and young, we list smaller and more recent religions and philosophies. They may attract more attention than their shear numbers alone, people may be interested how their beliefs and practices differ from many others, such as refusal of certain medical treatments for themselves and family namely blood transfusions, lack of celebration of Christmas and birthdays, and door to door preaching. Their numbers are enough for placement here, their practices attract more interest than their numbers alone.  Carlwev  22:35, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
  • "They may attract more attention than their shear numbers alone, people may be interested how their beliefs and practices differ from many others" They may be more interested that this new religious movement "does not tolerate dissent over doctrines and practices", warns adherents to "avoid independent thinking", and that "the group's leaders cultivate a system of unquestioning obedience in which Witnesses abrogate all responsibility and rights over their personal lives." This is the kind of movement that gives cults a bad name. Dimadick (talk) 20:24, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
PASSED
10–0, added. --Rreagan007 (talk) 16:55, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Add Greek Orthodox Church

One of the largest and oldest Christian sects pbp 23:53, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

Support
  1. pbp 23:53, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
  2. Support There are presently 23-24 million followers of the Greek Orthodox Church. ―Susmuffin Talk 00:42, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
  3. Support  Carlwev  03:21, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
  4. Support Rreagan007 (talk) 21:40, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
  5. Support Orthodox is underrepresented relative to Catholicism and Protestantism. Gizza (t)(c) 21:59, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
  6. Support Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 22:53, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
  7. Support power~enwiki (π, ν) 18:00, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
  8. Support An estimated 23–24 million Christians use Koine Greek in their liturgy. Note however that the Greek Orthodox Church is part of the wider Eastern Orthodox Church, which has 250 million members. Dimadick (talk) 12:34, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
  9. --RekishiEJ (talk) 09:56, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
  10. Support. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 17:16, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
Oppose
Discuss
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
PASSED:

5-0, added. feminist (talk) 15:50, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Add Statute of Westminster 1931

This is the document that gave autonomy to Commonwealth nations and sets the "sets the basis for the continuing relationship between the Commonwealth realms and the Crown".

Support
  1. Support As proposer. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 05:53, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
  2. Support Dimadick (talk) 11:19, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
  3. Support Zingarese talk · contribs 17:11, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
  4. Support Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 20:26, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
  5. Support - I was unaware of this fascinating document until this nomination. Clearly vital at L4. Jusdafax (talk) 21:22, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
Oppose
Discussion
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
PASSED
5–0, added. --Rreagan007 (talk) 00:32, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Swap: Add Event horizon, Remove Schwarzschild radius

Event horizon is the broader and more well-known topic.

Support
  1. Support as nom. Rreagan007 (talk) 21:36, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
  2. Support  Carlwev  22:32, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
  3. Support --Thi (talk) 07:41, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
  4. Support - per nom and Carlwev. Jusdafax (talk) 06:35, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
  5. Support The article on the Event horizon is far more basic than the article on the Schwarzchild radius. ―Susmuffin Talk 02:18, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
Oppose
Discuss

In the physics wikiproject Event horizon is High priority but Schwarzschild radius is even higher at top priority. However I'm not sure I agree with these assessments. Event horizon appears in 60 other languages, but Schwarzschild radius only 41. I think Event horizon is a better well known term that people will look up more, the average daily page views are higher for Event horizon are almost double 1156 vs 583, Event horizon is slightly longer and has over double watchers, however important that is. [1] The article on event horizon explains there are more than one kind of event horizon that apply to more things not just the black hole one, such as particle horizon, and Cosmic event horizon and a few more; The article explains these in addition tho the black hole as well.  Carlwev  22:32, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

Yeah I don't agree with those WikiProject importance assessments at all. Those should definitely be updated. Rreagan007 (talk) 00:04, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
All four proposals failed, 1-3 Gizza (t)(c) 04:29, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Add radial velocity

Arguably the most important property of sources from an observational standpoint (moreso than parallax, which is listed), this is important all the way from nearby star astronomy to cosmology for a wide variety of reasons. 216.234.200.180 (talk) 20:37, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

Support
  1. 216.234.200.180 (talk) 20:37, 1 July 2018 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose utterly non-vital. Stars and planets are discovered by parallax methods. Pretty much nothing is discovered by radial velocity methods. Parallax also applies to several non-astronomical measurements, from using rulers, to military triangulation, to a bunch of other things.Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 21:49, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
  2. Oppose --Thi (talk) 08:19, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
  3. Oppose I simply do not see why this is vital. ―Susmuffin Talk 02:18, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
Discuss

Add surface brightness

A central concept, moreso than even the integrated brightness of a source. This is THE quantity that astronomers measure in any resolved system. 216.234.200.180 (talk) 20:37, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

Support
  1. 216.234.200.180 (talk) 20:37, 1 July 2018 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose utterly non-vital. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 21:49, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
  2. Oppose --Thi (talk) 08:27, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
  3. Oppose I simply do not see why this is vital. ―Susmuffin Talk 05:22, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
Discuss

Add astronomical spectroscopy

The technique used to glean a huge range of information about sources. One of the two main observational techniques, along with continuum imaging. 216.234.200.180 (talk) 20:37, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

Support
  1. 216.234.200.180 (talk) 20:37, 1 July 2018 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose spectroscopy is sufficient at this level. This is a general encyclopedia, not an astronomy-focused encyclopedia. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 22:12, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
  2. Oppose --Thi (talk) 08:27, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
  3. Oppose This list is intended to be a general one; we should not include articles that would only interest a very small group of people. ―Susmuffin Talk 00:43, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
Discuss

Add giant-impact hypothesis

The leading theory for the formation of the Moon. 216.234.200.180 (talk) 20:37, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

Support
  1. 216.234.200.180 (talk) 20:37, 1 July 2018 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose already covered in Moon#Formation. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 21:50, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
  2. Oppose. Not vital enough at this level. Rreagan007 (talk) 00:12, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
  3. Oppose The formation of the Moon was far less vital than the Moon itself. ―Susmuffin Talk 00:44, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
Discuss
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
FAILED
1-3, failed. feminist (talk) 15:56, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Add SN 1987A

This is one of the main reasons we know anything about supernovae. It's by far the closest and brightest supernova since the advent of modern astronomy and has been subject to many, many studies. 216.234.200.180 (talk) 20:37, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

Support
  1. 216.234.200.180 (talk) 20:37, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

# Support --Thi (talk) 11:33, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

Oppose
  1. Neutral Oppose for level 4, would support at level 5. I'm not convinced we need an example of a supernova at this level, and if we had... Crab Nebula might take it over SN 1987a. That said, SN 1987a is really a scientific breakthrough, so it wouldn't be a bad choice if we needed something at level 4. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 22:00, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
  2. Oppose I agree with Headbomb that the Crab Nebula would be a better choice. Rreagan007 (talk) 00:19, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
  3. Oppose The purpose of this project is to create a list of the 10,000 most vital articles in this encyclopaedia. The subject of this article would only interest a very small group of people. ―Susmuffin Talk 14:28, 29 July 2018 (UTC)
Discuss
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
FAILED
1-4, failed. feminist (talk) 15:58, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Remove tidal locking and Lagrangian point

Two concepts that simply aren't vital at this level. They're used in some areas of astronomy, but not important to the field as a whole like some other topics I've proposed adding. 216.234.200.180 (talk) 20:37, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

Support
  1. 216.234.200.180 (talk) 20:37, 1 July 2018 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose. Rreagan007 (talk) 02:45, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
  2. Oppose. --Thi (talk) 07:43, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
  3. Oppose.  Carlwev  19:39, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
  4. Oppose These two articles discuss very basic topics in astronomy. ―Susmuffin Talk 00:47, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
Discuss
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
FAILED
Planetary science 1-3, galactic astronomy 1-4, both failed. feminist (talk) 15:59, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Add planetary science and galactic astronomy

Two fields that are quite clearly vital, especially the latter. 216.234.200.180 (talk) 20:37, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

Support
  1. 216.234.200.180 (talk) 20:37, 1 July 2018 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose not in the least vital at this level. Maybe at level 5. Maybe. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 22:02, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
  2. Oppose galactic astronomy Too specialized. Neutral on planetary science. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 01:04, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
  3. Oppose we removed articles like Ornithology (the study of birds) and these articles are at a similar level of importance. Probably L5. Gizza (t)(c) 06:33, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
  4. Oppose The two articles discussed topics that are far too specific for this list. ―Susmuffin Talk 02:18, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
Discuss
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
FAILED
1-4, failed. feminist (talk) 16:00, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Swap, add open cluster and globular cluster, remove star cluster

While these are both two types of star clusters, they are fundamentally different and can't be lumped together at all. The broader article tries to do this, but the two concepts are vital in their own rights, not together. 216.234.200.180 (talk) 20:37, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

Support
  1. 216.234.200.180 (talk) 20:37, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

# Support --Thi (talk) 11:34, 3 July 2018 (UTC) Maybe one article is the best solution at this level. --Thi (talk) 07:45, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

Oppose
  1. Oppose star cluster covers both already. Zero need for two articles when one will do. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 22:09, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
  2. Oppose per Headbomb. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 01:01, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
  3. Oppose Agree with the above. We have limited space here and the more general article that covers both is preferable at this level. Rreagan007 (talk) 00:21, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
  4. Oppose This list should not contain overly specific topics. ―Susmuffin Talk 08:11, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
Discuss
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
FAILED
1-3, failed. feminist (talk) 16:01, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Add pre-main-sequence star

We're missing one of the most important stages in stellar evolution between a protostar and the main sequence. 216.234.200.180 (talk) 20:37, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

Support
  1. 216.234.200.180 (talk) 20:37, 1 July 2018 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose Not vital at level 4. This is a general encyclopedia, not a astronomy focused endeavor. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 22:03, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
  2. Oppose --Thi (talk) 08:27, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
  3. Oppose I do not see why we would need that level of detail on those two topics. ―Susmuffin Talk 02:18, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
Discuss
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
FAILED
2-4, failed. feminist (talk) 16:03, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Add heat death of the universe

At this point, we're pretty certain that this is going to be the ultimate fate of the universe. 216.234.200.180 (talk) 20:37, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

Support
  1. 216.234.200.180 (talk) 20:37, 1 July 2018 (UTC)
  2. Support --Thi (talk) 11:36, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose Not vital at level 4. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 22:05, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
  2. Oppose Only one of multiple theories. The general article is more vital. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 01:00, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
  3. Oppose. We already list Ultimate fate of the universe. That's sufficient for this level. Rreagan007 (talk) 00:06, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
  4. Oppose We should not include overly specific topics at this level. ―Susmuffin Talk 02:18, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
Discuss
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
FAILED
1-4, not added. Rreagan007 (talk) 20:15, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Add physical optics

This is how optics is actually done these days. 216.234.200.180 (talk) 20:37, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

Support
  1. 216.234.200.180 (talk) 20:37, 1 July 2018 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose optics is enough. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 16:54, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
  2. Oppose --Thi (talk) 17:13, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
  3. Oppose power~enwiki (π, ν) 18:20, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
  4. Oppose We should not include overly specific articles at this level. ―Susmuffin Talk 12:12, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
Discuss
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
FAILED
1-4, not swapped. Rreagan007 (talk) 20:16, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Swap: add electronic band structure, remove amorphous solid

These are probably of comparable vitality to pure physicists. However, the former had many more applications than the latter, so with only room for one, it has to be the former. 216.234.200.180 (talk) 20:37, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

Support
  1. 216.234.200.180 (talk) 20:37, 1 July 2018 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose we are not a physics encyclopedia. And if we have crystal, we need amorphous solid. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 17:49, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
  2. Oppose amorphous solids are a common topic of interest among the public, e.g. the urban legend that glass is a liquid that flows, and USA elementary school curricula covering the states of matter. Electronic band structures by contrast are only important for physicists and engineers to understand. --Steve (talk) 00:57, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
  3. Oppose --Thi (talk) 21:00, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
  4. Oppose power~enwiki (π, ν) 18:20, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
Discuss
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
FAILED
1-4, not added. Rreagan007 (talk) 20:17, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Add Boltzmann distribution and partition function

These are the fundamental equations of statistical mechanics. Useful in a huge range of fields; you can't be a physicist and not know these. 216.234.200.180 (talk) 20:37, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

Support
  1. 216.234.200.180 (talk) 20:37, 1 July 2018 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose this is an encyclopedia for everyone. Not an encyclopedia for physicists. Maybe vital at level 5, not at 4. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 17:20, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
  2. Oppose --Thi (talk) 21:11, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
  3. Oppose Too specialized for this level. Add them to level 5. Rreagan007 (talk) 00:25, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
  4. Oppose power~enwiki (π, ν) 18:20, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
Discuss

Partition function is a DAB page, I'm not sure which meaning is relevant here. power~enwiki (π, ν) 18:20, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
PASSED
5–0, removed. --Rreagan007 (talk) 16:56, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Remove Dining room

"Dining rooms, once used daily are not seeing much use at all these days." [2] Current trends such as urbanization favour smaller homes. [3] [4]

Support
  1. Support as nom. --Thi (talk) 13:47, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
  2. Support Plantdrew (talk) 21:51, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
  3. Support We are presently seven articles over the quota in this section. ―Susmuffin Talk 17:38, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
  4. Support Gizza (t)(c) 12:38, 25 July 2018 (UTC)
  5. feminist (talk) 16:04, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
Oppose
Discuss
  • I'm currently neutral. Living room probably should meet the same fate as this article. power~enwiki (π, ν) 21:41, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
    • I agree with this. Those two articles are on par in terms of vitality. If one goes they both should go. Rreagan007 (talk) 19:15, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
PASSED
5–0, removed. --Rreagan007 (talk) 16:57, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Remove Living room

If the above article is removed, then this one should be removed as well.

Support
  1. Support I am the nominator ―Susmuffin Talk 17:38, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
  2. Support I think this is even less vital than dining room. Rreagan007 (talk) 18:37, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
  3. Support Gizza (t)(c) 22:14, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
  4. Weak support --Thi (talk) 07:19, 25 July 2018 (UTC)
  5. feminist (talk) 16:05, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
Oppose
Discuss
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
PASSED
Removed, 5-1 pbp 22:59, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Remove Samuel of Bulgaria

Least important of the five Medieval Bulgarian figures on this list. Of the three representatives of the First Bulgarian Empire (Krum was before, Ivan was after), he presided over the nadir/downfall and therefore is the least vital pbp

Support
  1. pbp 15:24, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
  2. Support --Thi (talk) 16:12, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
  3. Support We will soon be ten articles over the quota in this section. ―Susmuffin Talk 13:32, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
  4. Support Neutralitytalk 16:33, 28 July 2018 (UTC)
  5. Support something has to give as the overall list is above 10K and four medieval Bulgarian leaders is still fair coverage. Gizza (t)(c) 02:47, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose A highly successful expansionist and a key figure of his era. "During Samuel's reign, Bulgaria gained control of most of the Balkans (with the notable exception of Thrace) as far as southern Greece. He moved the capital from Skopje to Ohrid" ... "Samuel is among the most renowned Bulgarian rulers. His military struggle with the Byzantine Empire is marked as an epic period of Bulgarian history. The great number of monuments and memorials in Bulgaria and Republic of Macedonia, such as the ones in Petrich and Ohrid, signify the trail this historical figure has left in the memory of the people. Four Bulgarian villages bear his name, as well as Samuel Point on Livingston Island, Antarctica. Samuel is the main figure in at least three major Bulgarian novels by authors Dimitar Talev, Anton Donchev and Stefan Tsanev and also stars in the Greek novel "At the Times of the Bulgarian-Slayer" by Penelope Delta, who closely follows the narrative flow of events as presented by St. Runciman. He is mentioned in the verse of Ivan Vazov, Pencho Slaveykov,and Atanas Dalchev as well." Dimadick (talk) 13:57, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
Discuss
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
PASSED
5-0, added. --Thi (talk) 06:43, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Add Value (ethics)

One of the most common concepts in ethics. It is also used in social and political discussions, see for example World Values Survey.

Support
  1. Support as nom. --Thi (talk) 06:40, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
  2. Support dawnleelynn(talk) 03:29, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
  3. Support In this case, large impact outside philosophy. The personal values of an individual, and the cultural values of entire populations tend to influence their actions in the long-run. The propagation of a group's values can result in changes in cultural history. Dimadick (talk) 07:34, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
  4. Support - Vital at L4. Jusdafax (talk) 08:45, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
  5. Support This is an absurdly important aspect of ethics, as it has influenced every single decision made by mankind. ―Susmuffin Talk 23:55, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
Oppose
Discuss
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
1-3, not added Gizza (t)(c) 22:16, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Add minute and second of arc

Commonly-used units in many fields in both astronomy and physics where small angular scales are important. 216.234.200.180 (talk) 20:37, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

Support
  1. 216.234.200.180 (talk) 20:37, 1 July 2018 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose angle and Degree (angle) are the vital ones. The smaller subdivisions are covered in Degree (angle)#Subdivisions. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 21:41, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
  2. Oppose Not at this level. --Thi (talk) 08:16, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
  3. Oppose This topic is far too specific for this level. ―Susmuffin Talk 20:11, 29 July 2018 (UTC)
Discuss
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
PASSED
5-0, added. --Rreagan007 (talk) 18:45, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Add atmosphere (unit)

A common unit in many subfields of physics and chemistry to describe pressures encountered in everyday life. Used just as much as or even more than the SI unit pascal. 216.234.200.180 (talk) 20:37, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

Support
  1. 216.234.200.180 (talk) 20:37, 1 July 2018 (UTC)
  2. Support, very common, both in casual communication with the public, and in the industry. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 23:17, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
  3. Support Rreagan007 (talk) 05:56, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
  4. Support This is a common unit that is used in both casual and professional discussions of pressure. ―Susmuffin Talk 14:13, 29 July 2018 (UTC)
  5. --RekishiEJ (talk) 13:23, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
Oppose
Discuss
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
FAILED
1–4, not added. --Rreagan007 (talk) 18:59, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Add gravitational lens

This phenomenon is what allows us to study galaxies at high redshift with any degree of precision and spatial resolution. 216.234.200.180 (talk) 20:37, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

Support
  1. 216.234.200.180 (talk) 20:37, 1 July 2018 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose. Not vital at level 4. At level 5 yes. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 22:08, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
  2. Oppose --Thi (talk) 05:59, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
  3. Oppose This article is far too specific for this level. ―Susmuffin Talk 02:18, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
  4. Oppose per the above comments. Important, but not vital. — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs)  06:04, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
Discuss
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
FAILED
3-3, not added. --Rreagan007 (talk) 19:02, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Add Big Bang nucleosynthesis

We have stellar nucleosynthesis included, let's include the way that the elements originally formed before this. 216.234.200.180 (talk) 20:37, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

Support
  1. 216.234.200.180 (talk) 20:37, 1 July 2018 (UTC)
  2. Support --Thi (talk) 11:36, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
  3. Support adding this will along with stellar nucleosynthesis, explain how most elements were created. Critical point in time in the chronology of the universe. Don't think adding the generic nucleosynthesis process is necessary. Gizza (t)(c) 22:42, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose. Would support Nucleosynthesis though. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 22:06, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
  2. Oppose. I agree with Headbomb that the general article on nucleosynthesis is what should be added at this level. I have started that nomination below this one. Rreagan007 (talk) 00:37, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
  3. Oppose I would prefer the inclusion of a more general article on this subject. ―Susmuffin Talk 02:18, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
Discuss
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
PASSED
5-0, added. --Rreagan007 (talk) 19:03, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Add Nucleosynthesis, remove Stellar nucleosynthesis

Rather than adding the separate articles on Big Bang nucleosynthesis and Stellar nucleosynthesis, we should add the general article that covers both at this level.

Support
  1. Support as nom. Rreagan007 (talk) 00:37, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
  2. Support --Thi (talk) 08:24, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
  3. Support, yup. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 14:37, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
  4. Support We should include articles that would interest a general audience. ―Susmuffin Talk 00:54, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
  5. Support Hanif Al Husaini (talk) 09:53, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
Oppose
Discuss
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
2-4, not removed Gizza (t)(c) 22:17, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Remove Pietà (Michelangelo)

I think that only one sculpture by Michelangelo is needed at this level.

Support
  1. Support as nom. --Thi (talk) 20:16, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
  2. Support per nom. Definitely not as vital as David (Michelangelo). Gizza (t)(c) 21:55, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose One sculpture to represent the Renaissance is not enough IMO and these two are definitely the most appropriate choices. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 20:24, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
  2. Oppose - I agree with Presidentman. An outstanding piece of art. Jusdafax (talk) 21:26, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
  3. Oppose, outstanding piece of art, studied by nearly all visual arts students, imitated or emulated countless of times. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 17:15, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
  4. Oppose Dimadick (talk) 14:49, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
Discuss
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
PASSED:

6-0, swapped. feminist (talk) 16:15, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Swap Stephen King Isaac Bashevis Singer and Wallace Stevens with Hesiod

I am proposing the removal of an two overly recent authors, and the addition of one of the most prominent ancient Greek poets. To be honest, there are far too many American and British authors on this list; this section is horribly unbalanced. This section is also overly focused on modern writers to the detriment of their less-modern peers. We need to fix these issues as soon as possible. With regard to Stephen King, it is very difficult to gauge if his influence will last beyond his lifetime. Also, he is clearly not as influential as many of the authors that are in the Modern writers section. Why do we have these two men on this list? They were clearly not vital in any reasonable definition of the word. Meanwhile, Hesiod's works are one of the main sources for a vast variety of subjects relating to ancient Greece, and the ancient world in general.

Support
  1. Support I am the nominator. ―Susmuffin Talk 15:44, 27 July 2018 (UTC)
  2. Support --Thi (talk) 17:51, 27 July 2018 (UTC)
  3. Support per nom. Also Mendele Mocher Sforim is probably a better representative of Yiddish literature than Singer. Gizza (t)(c) 04:57, 29 July 2018 (UTC)
  4. Support Dimadick (talk) 14:47, 29 July 2018 (UTC)
  5. Hesoid is more vital than Isaac Bashevis Singer and Wallace Stevens, and the list is now full.--RekishiEJ (talk) 12:43, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
  6. Support Yiddish is a small language, Stevens should have never been on this list and the list is full so hard choices have to be made. GuzzyG (talk) 01:02, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
Oppose
Discuss
  • I'd support a swap with Stan Lee, Isaac Bashevis Singer or Wallace Stevens.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 16:04, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

It is too late to participate in this discussion, but I just wanted to say that I am very glad to see that Hesiod has finally been added to this list. Along with the Iliad and the Odyssey, the poems of Hesiod are part of the foundation of ancient Greek literature and of western literature as a whole. I was very perturbed when I first saw Hesiod was only at Level 5, but I did not say anything. If I had known about this discussion sooner, I would have voted strongly in support. --Katolophyromai (talk) 19:33, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
PASSED:

6-0, removed. feminist (talk) 14:36, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Remove Oedipus

We have both Oedipus complex and Oedipus Rex on the list, the mythical figure isn't nearly important enough to justify a separate entry here. power~enwiki (π, ν) 20:29, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

Support
  1. as nom power~enwiki (π, ν) 20:29, 26 July 2018 (UTC)
  2. Support --Thi (talk) 05:43, 27 July 2018 (UTC)
  3. Support Freud is listed as well. Gizza (t)(c) 06:31, 27 July 2018 (UTC)
  4. Support The concepts that surround the character are far more vital than the character himself. Also, we should remove a few more Greek mythological figures, as this section has far too many of them. ―Susmuffin Talk 06:41, 27 July 2018 (UTC)
  5. Support Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 01:30, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
  6. Support per nom.  — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs)  06:19, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
Oppose
Discuss
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
FAILED:

2-5, kept. feminist (talk) 14:39, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Swap: remove Coriolis force, add angular velocity

We don't need a ficticious force on the list at this level, it's no more vital than centrifugal force (which rightly isn't listed). Angular velocity is a key quantity in any classical angular system. 216.234.200.180 (talk) 20:37, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

Support
  1. 216.234.200.180 (talk) 20:37, 1 July 2018 (UTC)
  2. Support indeed anybody seeking a basic understanding of rotation will need to understand angular velocity. Coriolis force should be redundant to ficticious force at this level. Gizza (t)(c) 12:44, 25 July 2018 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose responsible for hurricanes, storms, and most wind activity on earth. Angular velocity is level 5 at best. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 16:56, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
  2. Oppose --Thi (talk) 17:13, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
  3. Oppose Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 15:21, 7 July 2018 (UTC)
  4. Oppose power~enwiki (π, ν) 18:20, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
  5. Oppose removal Coriolis force is high-profile even to non-scientists. — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs)  06:14, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
Discuss
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
FAILED:

2-4, kept. feminist (talk) 14:41, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Swap: remove alpha particle and beta particle, add alpha decay and beta decay

The particles themselves aren't vital, but the decay that creates them is. 216.234.200.180 (talk) 20:37, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

Support
  1. 216.234.200.180 (talk) 20:37, 1 July 2018 (UTC)
  2. Support the particles are electrons and helium nuclei; they're only special because of the decay processes. power~enwiki (π, ν) 18:20, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose The actual particles are more vital than their process. The processes are also summarized in the particles' articles. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 17:21, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
  2. Oppose --Thi (talk) 21:11, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
  3. Oppose The processes of decay that create the two particles are less important than the particles themselves. ―Susmuffin Talk 15:18, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
  4. Oppose. I agree with the above comments. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rreagan007 (talk • contribs)
Discuss
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
PASSED:

5-0, removed. feminist (talk) 03:57, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Remove Marcel Breuer

A modernist architect, and furniture designer. As an architect he is probably not as famous internationally as his mentor Walter Gropius or his pupil I. M. Pei. Other architects and designers of the era such as Le Corbusier and Alvar Aalto are equally known for their chair designs.

Support
  1. Support as nom. --Thi (talk) 18:15, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
  2. Support per nom. Gizza (t)(c) 01:41, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
  3. Support Rreagan007 (talk) 01:03, 26 July 2018 (UTC)
  4. Support per nom. GuzzyG (talk) 12:24, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
  5. Support Marcel Breuer was clearly not one of the most important architects to ever live. ―Susmuffin Talk 17:58, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
Oppose


Discuss
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
PASSED:

6-0, added. feminist (talk) 04:02, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Add Hanno the Navigator

Hanno the Navigator was one of the most prominent ancient explorers. He is best known for his exploration of the western coast of Africa. This journey may have reached as far south as what is now Gabon. Also, it is possible that Hanno was the first recorded person to describe gorillas, which his interpreters referred to as "Gorillae."

Support
  1. Support I am the nominator. ―Susmuffin Talk 19:36, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
  2. Support Dimadick (talk) 19:59, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
  3. Support Gizza (t)(c) 02:18, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
  4. Support - After reading the article, I’m in. Jusdafax (talk) 01:19, 25 July 2018 (UTC)
  5. Support Rreagan007 (talk) 01:01, 26 July 2018 (UTC)
  6. Support GuzzyG (talk) 01:06, 28 July 2018 (UTC)
Oppose
Discuss

@DaGizza: Would this be a suitable replacement for Antipater? ―Susmuffin Talk 19:36, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

@Susmuffin: it is an improvement, thanks. Gizza (t)(c) 02:18, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
PASSED:

6-0, added. feminist (talk) 03:34, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Add Robert Peel

Sir Robert Peel, 2nd Baronet was one of the most prominent British politicians of the Victorian era. This was the British Home Secretary who first implemented the idea of policing by consent; he is commonly regarded as the father of modern policing itself. Also, he drafted the Roman Catholic Relief Act 1829. This act was the culmination of the process of Catholic emancipation. As Chancellor of the Exchequer, he issued the Tamworth Manifesto. This manifesto is regarded as the founding document of the British Conservative Party. As Prime Minister, he repealed the Corn Laws, which resulted in the end of his second ministry. The Corn Laws were a series of tariffs and other trade restrictions on imported food and grain, which were intended to promote domestic production. The repeal of the laws was a decisive shift of British policy towards free trade. Before the laws were repealed, rural landowners were the economically and politically dominant class in the British Isles. A few decades after the repeal, they lost their economic preeminence and their political influence evaporated as well.

Support
  1. Support I am the nominator. ―Susmuffin Talk 05:43, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
  2. Support Dimadick (talk) 13:27, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
  3. Support The repeal of the Corn Laws and Catholic Emancipation were extremely important. His role in the founding of the modern Conservative Party and then its split was also highly significant. More important than some other British Prime Ministers we have. Neljack (talk) 03:41, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
  4. Support Rreagan007 (talk) 01:05, 26 July 2018 (UTC)
  5. Support - per nom and Dimadick’s discussion below. Jusdafax (talk) 21:52, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
  6. Support GuzzyG (talk) 11:40, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
Oppose
Discuss
  • "His role in the founding of the modern Conservative Party and then its split was also highly significant." On the negative side, Peel is remembered for failing to handle the Great Famine of Ireland properly, and his measures on the crisis were largely ineffectual.: "Peel did make some moves to subsidise the purchase of food for the Irish, but this attempt was small and had little tangible effect. In the age of laissez-faire, government taxes were small, and subsidies or direct economic interference were almost nonexistent. That subsidies were actually given was very much out of character for the political times; Peel's successor, Lord John Russell, received more criticism than Peel on Irish policy. ... Despite all of Peel's efforts, his reform programs had little effect on the situation in Ireland." Dimadick (talk) 07:41, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
WITHDRAWN
It is clear that this will not pass. ―Susmuffin Talk 17:19, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Remove Donald Duck

We should not have two Disney characters in this section. Also, Popeye has had a greater level of influence, according to a list that both articles reference. [5] While I disagree with large portions of this list, I agree that Popeye is more influential than Donald Duck.

Support
  1. Support I am the nominator. ―Susmuffin Talk 11:40, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose unless also Mickey Mouse is removed or it is a swap with Carl Barks. Donald Duck is more popular character in many parts of Europe and Asia. Popeye is not vital at this level. --Thi (talk) 12:17, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
  2. Oppose Per what Thi said.--LaukkuTheGreit (Talk•Contribs) 15:02, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
  3. Oppose Donald is much more memorable. "He has appeared in more films than any other Disney character, and is the most published comic book character in the world outside of the superhero genre." To quote the deceased Don Markstein: "Today, Donald Duck is recognized by people of all ages, the world over. His face appears on lunch boxes, T-shirts, and thousands of other products, including a long-running brand of frozen orange juice. And at any given moment, somewhere in the world, in any of a hundred languages, someone is reading a Donald Duck comic book or watching a Donald Duck cartoon." Dimadick (talk) 17:00, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
  4. The face of Disney outside of the United States is Donald Duck. Donald has appeared in more media than any cartoon character in history (yes, more than Mickey). If you ignore the American market, the edge is even stronger in favor of Donald. pbp 13:12, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
Discuss
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
PASSED:

5-0, added. feminist (talk) 03:27, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Add blood sugar level

Support
  1. As nom. It is absurd to include blood pressure but not this topic in the list, since these two indicators of human health are equally vital.--RekishiEJ (talk) 11:17, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
  2. Support on par with blood pressure and cholesterol. Gizza (t)(c) 22:23, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
  3. Support Dimadick (talk) 16:16, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
  4. Support Esiymbro (talk) 08:24, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
  5. Support One cannot determine if a person has diabetes without first testing their blood sugar level. ―Susmuffin Talk 03:01, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
Oppose
Discuss
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
NO CONSENSUS
2-3, no consensus after 60 days. --Thi (talk) 07:03, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Add Evelyn Hooker

This psychologist should be added to counter the list's gender bias. Besides, her studies helped to de-pathologize homosexuality both in America and the world.

Support
  1. As nom.--RekishiEJ (talk) 05:04, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
  2. Support Innovative in her field. "most notable for her 1957 paper "The Adjustment of the Male Overt Homosexual" in which she administered several psychological tests to groups of self-identified male homosexuals and heterosexuals and asked experts to identify the homosexuals and rate their mental health. The experiment, which other researchers subsequently repeated, argues that homosexuality is not a mental disorder, as there was no detectable difference between homosexual and heterosexual men in terms of mental adjustment." Dimadick (talk) 09:49, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose Not vital at this level --Thi (talk) 14:42, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
  2. Oppose I agree with Thi. Rreagan007 (talk) 01:01, 26 July 2018 (UTC)
  3. Oppose i now oppose. Too much psychologists. (should be 20) GuzzyG (talk) 11:37, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
Discuss
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
PASSED:

5-0, removed. feminist (talk) 03:50, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Remove Irina Rodnina

Not a vital biography for a limited human history covering world encyclopedia of the 2000 most important people. Cycling has one representative and is more important to sports globally then Figure skating. Some hard choices have to be made and she does not cut it. GuzzyG (talk) 02:19, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

Support
  1. Support as nom. GuzzyG (talk) 02:19, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
  2. Support --Thi (talk) 07:49, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
  3. Support She is clearly less important than the other figure skater. Also, we are still nine articles over the quota in this section. ―Susmuffin Talk 19:15, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
  4. Support User:CamHat000099 16:33, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
  5. Support Dawid2009 (talk) 10:20, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
Oppose
Discuss
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
PASSED:

8-4, removed. feminist (talk) 03:58, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Remove Lou Gehrig

This one is going to be controversial but we have to make really hard choices, there's a level 5 list so it's not a loss. He is the least vital baseball player on the list and is mainly famous for his diagnosis and death. Ted Williams and Josh Gibson are more vital. Baseball should not have 7 representatives when Basketball has 6; the top three team sports worldwide are:

1. Association Football 2. Cricket 3. Basketball

Baseball is limited to the US, Japan and Latin America. Baseball realistically should only have 5 with a pitcher but at the very least it should be on the same level as Basketball. (6).

Support
  1. Support as nom. GuzzyG (talk) 02:19, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
  2. Support --Thi (talk) 07:49, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
  3. Support per nom. Gizza (t)(c) 10:50, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
  4. Support Lou Gehrig was more prominent for his eponymous disease than he was as a baseball player. ―Susmuffin Talk 16:53, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
  5. Support User:CamHat000099 17:55, (UTC)
  6. Support Sports is bloated and you can get pretty far telling the story of baseball with just Babe Ruth, Jackie Robinson and Cy Young. pbp 22:33, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
  7. Support Neljack (talk) 09:40, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
  8. Support  Carlwev  03:26, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose. He's vital at this level. I also disagree with the proposed methodology for determining vitality based on worldwide popularity. This list is specific for the English Wikipedia, so the sports most popular to English-speakers/readers and in English-speaking countries is what we should be looking at. Rreagan007 (talk) 17:00, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
  2. Oppose per Rreagan. Jusdafax (talk) 21:56, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
  3. Oppose I oppose the idea of shrinking the number of baseball players in general, but Lou Gehrig was a signature feature of the game. His speech is a defining moment of baseball history. He was also a great ballplayer. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 22:12, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
  4. Weak oppose I am not entirely convinced that he is on the same level of impact as some famous writers, but Gehring's has had some impact in popular culture. In his one attempt at acting, he starred in the Western film Rawhide (1938). He was also the topic of biographical film The Pride of the Yankees (1942). The film won an academy Award and was nominated for 10 other Academy Awards. Dimadick (talk) 23:31, 19 August 2018 (UTC)


Discuss

I agree Reagan, but that doesn't justify more Baseball players then Basketball. Basketball is more prominent in Canada/UK/Aus/NZ/Ireland then Baseball. Ignoring that just like we have two bowlers for cricket, baseball needs a pitcher (Cy Young). Ted Williams and Josh Gibson have a better claim then Gehrig. Also Gehrig was on Ruth's team for a bit so there's overlap. GuzzyG (talk) 08:53, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

What do you think about add LeBron James to basketball? He has 8-th place in toplistoftheworld,among most known athletics in history of world (In this list he is better than Jordan and various sport figures from level4). When we check in Google Lebren is better than Jordan we have 55 000 000 results. When we check in google Messi is better than Maradona, we have only 1 000 000 results. Maybe better option would be add one basketball figure than removing one controversial baseball figure? Dawid2009 (talk) 09:54, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
I would prefer if we focused on removing people, as we are eight articles over the quota in this section. ―Susmuffin Talk 06:42, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
LeBron James should be added to basketball. He has 8-th place in toplistoftheworld (various people from level4 are lower than him). When we check in Google: Lebren is better than Jordan we have 55 000 000 results. When we check in google:Messi is better than Maradona, we have only 1 000 000 results. Dawid2009 (talk) 10:09, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
It is now clear that James is one of the two greatest basketball players in history, so he should definitely be added. Neljack (talk) 09:41, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
Currently we have 8-4 result in the voting. In my opinion discuss about swap Leu Gehring (removed from baseball) for LeBron James (add to basketball) would be valuable. Among sport figures we have 14 athletics, 14 soccer players, 7 baseball players and 6 basketball players so clearly it is possible. If we focused on removing people it seems to me better candidte to removing would be person from other category. Sonja Henie is listed at the level 4 while Matti Nykänen even is not listed at the level 5 . Dawid2009 (talk) 20:57, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
PASSED:

5-0, removed. feminist (talk) 04:01, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Remove Yurt

Per the article, a yurt is a type of tent, and we already list tent at this level. I see nothing special about this particular type of tent that would make it important enough to be listed separately at this level.

Support
  1. Support as nom. Rreagan007 (talk) 03:34, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
  2. Support The topic of this article would only interest a very small group of people. ―Susmuffin Talk 03:39, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
  3. Support --Thi (talk) 07:48, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
  4. Support per nom; this has too much overlap with tent here. power~enwiki (π, ν) 02:18, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
  5. Suppport--LaukkuTheGreit (Talk•Contribs) 06:29, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
Oppose
Discuss
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
PASSED:

7-0, swapped. feminist (talk) 09:27, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Add Sailing ship; Remove Junk (ship) and Caravel

The general article on sailing ships is what we should list at this level.

Support
  1. Support as nom. Rreagan007 (talk) 18:14, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
  2. Support --Thi (talk) 19:41, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
  3. Support Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 20:18, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
  4. Support The article on sailing ships is a more general article than the two on Junk ships and Caravels. Also, we are slightly over the quota in this section. ―Susmuffin Talk 21:56, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
  5. Support Dimadick (talk) 06:29, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
  6. Support --LaukkuTheGreit (Talk•Contribs) 07:16, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
  7. Support Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 01:34, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
Oppose
Discuss
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
FAILED
3-3. --Thi (talk) 06:55, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Add Leoš Janáček

"One of the most influential composers of the early 20th century, Leoš Janáček was initially known for his instrumental and chamber work. The Czech's reputation as an operatic composer grew steadily, however, with works such as The Cunning Little Vixen and Jenůfa." (BBC Music Magazine) His Glagolitic Mass is also famous.

Support
  1. Support as nom. --Thi (talk) 20:58, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
  2. Support Dimadick (talk) 13:47, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
  3. Support One of the most important 20th century opera composers. The Czech classical music tradition is an important one and we currently only have Dvorak. Neljack (talk) 06:26, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose We have enough composers. What's the diversity, remove people from unique fields just to add more composers and painters? GuzzyG (talk) 01:05, 28 July 2018 (UTC)
  2. Oppose Don't see the case for level 4 case here. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 20:21, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
  3. Oppose This composer was only relevant in a very specific context. Also, we should be very careful when we try to add people from the 19th, 20th and 21st centuries to this list, as there are too many of them as it is. ―Susmuffin Talk 21:42, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
Discuss
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
NO CONSENSUS
No votes for 30 days. --Thi (talk) 07:02, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Move Eduard Bernstein to Social scientists, economists and political writers

Eduard Bernstein was far more influential as a Marxist theorist than he was as a politician.

Support
  1. Support I am the nominator. ―Gregorius II 10:44, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose Reichstag member for about 20 years (1901-1907, 1912–1918, 1920–1928) and credited as one of the founders of the centrist Independent Social Democratic Party of Germany. Dimadick (talk) 11:06, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
  2. Oppose --Thi (talk) 14:43, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
Discuss
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
NO CONSENSUS
2-2, no votes for 30 days. --Thi (talk) 07:04, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Remove Respect (song)

I think we need Aretha Franklin but not necessarily her signature song on the list.

Support
  1. Support as nom. --Thi (talk) 19:21, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
  2. Support Rreagan007 (talk) 20:24, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose I can't in good conscience support the removal of R&B representation in songs. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 13:41, 7 July 2018 (UTC)
  2. Oppose per Headbomb. The article points out that the song was also done by Otis Redding and the Aretha Franklin version was seen as an iconic moment for the feminist movement. Not your average smash hit record. Jusdafax (talk) 21:43, 7 July 2018 (UTC)
Discuss
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
PASSED
5-0, removed. --Thi (talk) 07:17, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Remove Magician (supernatural)

For one thing, a magician isn't really a mythological creature. For another, we already list both Magic (supernatural) and Witchcraft at this level, which makes this article redundant. And we still need to make room in this section for the philosophy articles we will be adding soon.

Support
  1. Support as nom. --Rreagan007 (talk) 02:06, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
  2. Support --Thi (talk) 14:47, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
  3. Support There is nothing important in that article that cannot be discussed in the two other articles we have on that subject. Also, we do need to make room for multiple articles that will be added shortly. ―Susmuffin Talk 15:03, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
  4. Support Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 17:17, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
  5. Support Plantdrew (talk) 16:03, 23 August 2018 (UTC)
Oppose
Discuss

As an aside, I think the article's name should move to Wizard (paranormal) (Wizard is a disambiguation page). Gizza (t)(c) 22:41, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

Magic (paranormal) was recently moved to Magic (supernatural), so Wizard (supernatural) would probably be a better choice. Rreagan007 (talk) 22:53, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
PASSED
Removed, 5-0. --Thi (talk) 15:44, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Remove Frederic Remington

From the review of an art exhibition: "'Frederic Remington: Illustrator, Sculptor, Painter - Artist of the Old West,' is at first glance mostly a letdown. And at second glance as well. Remington, who died of appendicitis in 1909 at age 48, was much in demand a century ago as a commercial illustrator. But it was his two dozen or so sculptures of cowboys on horseback that established his reputation as an artist. This show of nearly 40 photographs, sculptures, paintings, and drawings includes a handful of those earlier works, which have not aged especially well. The milieu of cowboys and Indians as portrayed by Remington, a New Yorker who first made his way west in the late 1880s, is responsible for much of our shared vision of the Old West. That may be why so much of his work seems trite today -- we've seen so many variations of it that monotony quickly sets in." [6] [7]

Support
  1. Support as nom. --Thi (talk) 09:19, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
  2. Support per nom. GuzzyG (talk) 05:36, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
  3. Support  Carlwev  16:25, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
  4. Support He is only relevant to a very narrow segment of American art history. ―Susmuffin Talk 17:23, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
  5. Support Neljack (talk) 08:58, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
Oppose
Discuss

Remington is only at 19 different wikidata languages and 354,982 [8] pageviews across all languages; he must go; he's currently the worst performing modern non-ancient person listed. GuzzyG (talk) 12:24, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
FAILED
Withdrawn; clearly not going to get consensus. power~enwiki (π, ν) 04:57, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Remove Tau (particle)

We're probably going to be over quota after all these additions, and this doesn't seem vital enough for this level. Lepton is sufficient at this level for this exotic particle. power~enwiki (π, ν) 18:27, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

Support
  1. as nom power~enwiki (π, ν) 18:27, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose. We currently list all of the particles of the standard model at this level. Removing this article would break that. Rreagan007 (talk) 18:40, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
  2. Oppose per Rreagan007. Also the proposals are a mix of additions, removals and swaps and the additions don't look like they will be successful at this stage. Gizza (t)(c) 22:12, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
  3. Oppose This is not an exotic particle, it's one of the core particles of the standard model. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 22:17, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
Discuss
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
PASSED:

5-1, added. feminist (talk) 08:41, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Add Sauna

"Saunas have been used for thousands of years and are still popular today. A sauna can help people to unwind and relax, and it may have other health benefits. - - In the United States, there are thought to be over a million saunas." [9]

Support
  1. Support as nom. --Thi (talk) 15:43, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
  2. Support per nom. Gizza (t)(c) 23:45, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
  3. Support Saunas have been used by many different cultures throughout the world. ―Susmuffin Talk 23:57, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
  4. Support Dimadick (talk) 00:19, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
  5. Support  Carlwev  03:07, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. I don't know about this. Is sauna really more important than dining room, which we recently removed? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rreagan007 (talk • contribs) 23:58, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
Discuss
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
PASSED
Removed, 5-0. --Thi (talk) 10:27, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Remove Anthony Burgess

"Anthony Burgess is remembered for A Clockwork Orange, but little else." [10] Personally I would like to swap him for Graham Greene.

Support
  1. Support as nom. --Thi (talk) 19:12, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
  2. Support Anthony Burgess was best known for having written A Clockwork Orange, which was later adapted into a prominent film. He described this film as being the main source of his books popularity. This film was removed from this list in 2013. ―Susmuffin Talk 20:28, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
  3. Support I was going to nominate him and Harold Pinter for removal later. We have too many British writers to also add Greene as well. 35 is good for Brits/UK people and America should be around 35-40 too. GuzzyG (talk) 02:55, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
  4. Support per above. Gizza (t)(c) 22:32, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
  5. Support T8612 (talk) 09:54, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
Oppose
Discuss
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
PASSED
Removed, 5-0. --Thi (talk) 10:16, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Remove Dashiell Hammett

The least vital writer on the list in my opinion. His obituary in the times did call him the "Dean of the 'hard-boiled' school of detective fiction" but if that's all his reputation rests on then that's not enough; we do not list the founders of other similar sub-genres like Robert E. Howard; who was removed. There's plenty of writers missing that are more vital then him, including his romantic partner. We need to start cutting back on recent bloat and we are over the limit and there's still so much we do not cover. Dashiell is what level 5 should be for mainly; hugely popular artists in pop culture but no real influence on their field. Raymond Chandler is enough for this genre.

Support
  1. Support As nom. GuzzyG (talk) 05:34, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
  2. Support per nom. Gizza (t)(c) 05:44, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
  3. Support --Thi (talk) 06:04, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
  4. Support Dashiell Hammett may be the least influential of the Americans that we have on this list. Also, this list does have a distinct bias towards people from the the 19th and 20th centuries. This must be resolved. ―Susmuffin Talk 06:15, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
  5. Support Neljack (talk) 09:31, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
Oppose
Discuss
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
PASSED
Removed, 6-1. --Thi (talk) 10:20, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Remove Aleksey Nikolayevich Tolstoy

The least vital Russian writer on the list. We have nearly half as many modern Russian writers as we do Western Europe and almost the same as the post-classical and early modern sections full count. He's only really notable for two works and i do not think the influence of Russian science fiction is enough to put him on a list of the 2000 most important people ever. It may be diversity reasons to diversify science fiction but having 18 Russian writers is enough and the opposite of diversity, maybe 15 would be appropriate although i'd say even 10.

Support
  1. Support As nom. GuzzyG (talk) 05:34, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
  2. Support. I thought that he was already removed. --Thi (talk) 06:09, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
  3. Support There are far too many Russian writers on this list. Also, we are likely to remove several people that are far more influential than this writer. ―Susmuffin Talk 06:33, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
  4. Support Neljack (talk) 09:32, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
  5. Support His biography doesn't strike me as vital. In the article his selected works contain 9 works, 3 of which are stubs, and the other 6 do not even have articles at all, if he were vital we would probably be writing more about him and his books already.  Carlwev  03:15, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
  6. Support Gizza (t)(c) 22:34, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. We need more Russian writers, not less, since Russian literature became world-class after the 19th century, despite the fact that Russia became influential in the world much later than China. And this writer was one of the best Russian writers in the 20th century, pioneered in the Russian science fiction, and quite instrumental in investigating the mass extermination of people in gas vans by the German occupiers during the World War II, thus this writer should be kept.--RekishiEJ (talk) 10:26, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
Discuss
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
PASSED:

6-0, added. feminist (talk) 10:49, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Add Doha

Capital and largest city of Qatar population 1.3 million or 1.5 million including suburbs, more than double that of some other cities we list. It has about half the nations population, similar size and situation to Ulaanbaatar capital of Mongolia which we list and contains half its nation's people. History goes back to 1820s (or late seventeenth century if one includes the area of Al Bidda), not as old as some cities, but older than some American cities we list. It's known for it's economy and education, and is due to host the next world cup.

Support
  1. Support as nom.  Carlwev  17:13, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
  2. Support --Thi (talk) 17:37, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
  3. Support Dimadick (talk) 18:07, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
  4. Support Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 20:22, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
  5. Significant enough compared to some existing L4 cities. feminist (talk) 13:09, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
  6. Support power~enwiki (π, ν) 20:20, 26 July 2018 (UTC)
Oppose
Discuss
  • Doha is in similar territory to Kuwait City (also not listed) though probably not quite at the same level. Kuwait City is larger and likewise is a biggish city in an otherwise small (by area and population) oil-rich country. Kuwait City has an older history too going back to 1613. The difference between Doha and Ulaanbaatar is that the latter overlaps with the country's population but not with its area. Mongolia is a huge country by area and Ulaanbaatar doesn't represent the rural and nomadic parts of the country at all. When you take out Doha from Qatar, there is not much left, making it relatively more redundant. Having said that, I still might support this because Geography is under quota and frankly, should have a higher quota again as it used to. All of the traditional encyclopedias I have or have read cover geography in detail. It is one of the key areas of knowledge that an encyclopedia is expected to provide. Gizza (t)(c) 22:31, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
  • "Mongolia is a huge country by area". Not really. With 1,566,000 km2 (605,000 square miles), it is only the 18th largest country on the planet. Slightly larger than Peru. It is surpassed by (in order) Russia (1st), Canada (2nd), China (3rd), the United States (4th), Brazil (5th), Australia (6th), India (7th), Argentina (8th), Kazakhstan (9th), Algeria (10th), Democratic Republic of the Congo (11th), Saudi Arabia (12th), Mexico (13th), Indonesia (14th), Sudan (15th), Libya (16th), and Iran (17th). Dimadick (talk) 10:48, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
    I would say that being in the Top 20 makes it large. It's in the top decile of the world. My point was that there is a big divide between the rural/nomadic populations of Mongolia and Ulaanbaatar. That's not the case with rural/nomadic Qataris and the residents of Doha. And Mongolia is definitely huge relative to Qatar. 135 Qatars can fit into Mongolia [11]. Gizza (t)(c) 02:10, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
NO CONSENSUS
2-4, no consensus after 60 days. --Thi (talk) 10:37, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Remove Cubit

An ancient unit of length, better at level 5.

Support
  1. Support as nom. --Thi (talk) 12:59, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
  2. Support. There are many archaic units of measurement and I see no reason why this particular one should be listed. Rreagan007 (talk) 18:02, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. pbp 18:25, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
  2. Oppose Measurement unit in use in Ancient Egypt, Ancient Mesopotamia, Ancient Greece, and Ancient Rome. That is quite a history. Dimadick (talk) 16:23, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
  3. Oppose Very important unit of measurement historically. --Katolophyromai (talk) 16:25, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
  4. Oppose per pbp's comment below. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 01:36, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
Discuss

In both the cubit case and the non-metric unit case, I think we're being too prisoner-of-the-moment here. Most countries are on the metric system now, but many used "pound" and other non-metric units in the past. Is cubit a commonly used measurement now? No, but it had important significance in the past. pbp 18:25, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
NO CONSENSUS
no consensus after 60 days.

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Add ångström, remove hectare

Angstroms are one of the most commonly-unit non-SI units in many subfields of physics, chemistry, and astronomy when small length scales are necessary. In contrast, hectares are almost never used in scientific discourse. 216.234.200.180 (talk) 20:37, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

Support
  1. 216.234.200.180 (talk) 20:37, 1 July 2018 (UTC)
  2. Support add pbp 15:02, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose removal pbp 15:02, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
  2. Oppose both ångström is a niche unit of spectroscopy and material science. Utterly non-vital and unknown to anyone but specialists. Hectare however, is "widely used throughout the world for the measurement of large areas of land, and it is the legal unit of measure in domains concerned with land ownership, planning, and management, including law (land deeds), agriculture, forestry, and town planning throughout the European Union." It's also used outside the EU as well for commercial/legal purposes. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 21:44, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
  3. Oppose per Headbomb. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 01:12, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
  4. Oppose removal. Rreagan007 (talk) 18:00, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
  5. Oppose The hectare is commonly used to measure large plots of land, while the ångström is only relevant to people who have specialised in the fields of chemistry and physics. ―Susmuffin Talk 19:12, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
Discuss
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
MIXED
Consensus is to retain Lucille Ball and remove I Love Lucy pbp 00:29, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Remove Lucille Ball

I do not see why we should have both Lucille Ball and I Love Lucy on this list.

Support
  1. Support I am the nominator ―Susmuffin Talk 08:35, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
  2. Support --Thi (talk) 08:39, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose removing Lucille Ball. Gizza (t)(c) 00:01, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
  2. Oppose removing Lucille Ball. GuzzyG (talk) 03:10, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
  3. Oppose She is far more notable as the co-founder of Desilu Productions, and the producer of its shows, such as Star Trek: The Original Series and Mission: Impossible. "Ball and Arnaz jointly owned the majority stake in Desilu from its inception until 1962, when Ball bought out Arnaz and ran the company by herself for several years. Ball had succeeded in making Desilu profitable again by 1967, when she sold her shares of Desilu to Gulf+Western for $17 million ($155 million in 2023 dollars)." Dimadick (talk) 22:40, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
Remove I Love Lucy
  1. Support agree about removing one because of the overlap but prefer removing I Love Lucy. Both articles cover similar territory but the biography gets about 4 times the number of pageviews so it should probably be the article we focus on improving. Lucille Ball was also influential in creating other sitcoms later on. Gizza (t)(c) 00:01, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
  2. Support Fictional television shows are not really vital enough to be on this list in my opinion. We need more women in comedy and Carol Burnett shouldn't even be on this list let alone the only representative of it. Joan Rivers was much more important then Burnett. I think this, along with the refusal to swap Ed Sullivan out for his television show; shows that we need to make a definitive choice soon about television - as in remove The Tonight Show because we list Johnny Carson and potentially remove The Simpsons for Matt Groening. Then again this list is inconsistent with the popular artist + one piece of art rule as we list Harriet Beecher Stowe + her one famous book and Arthur Conan Doyle + Sherlock; now with the Level 5 list - some hard choices have to be made here; one or the other. GuzzyG (talk) 03:10, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
    The Simpsons is more prominent than its creator. Otherwise, I understand your concerns, and agree that some people and works need to be moved to the Level 5 list. ―Susmuffin Talk 07:21, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
  3. Support --Thi (talk) 05:43, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
  4. Support  Carlwev  03:08, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
  5. Support It is clear that this is the preferred option. Also, we should remove a few more television programs, as the section is clearly biased towards American television. Some of these programs do not appear to be as influential as many of the other works in that section. ―Susmuffin Talk 17:31, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
Discuss
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
PASSED
Removed, 5-0. --Thi (talk) 13:04, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Remove Thomas Eakins

Some could argue he's important to American art, but he's below Sargent and Whistler and in the grand scheme of things America did not really contribute that much specifically in painting to have 8 representatives when we are missing so many more important painters. Also with 39 different language articles and only 362,350 [12] pageviews (only 10k more then remington) he just does not make the cut. Before anyone brings up his one supremely famous painting The Gross Clinic we do not list Grant Wood who is in a similar situation with the much more famous American Gothic.

Support
  1. Support as nom. GuzzyG (talk) 12:24, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
  2. Support. This has been on my mind too. Whistler was added after Eakins and he is more notable. Eakins is not as famous internationally. --Thi (talk) 14:45, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
  3. Support pbp 19:09, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
  4. Support Thomas Eakins was far less influential than Grant Wood, who is not on this list. Also, American Gothic is only on the Level 5 list. ―Susmuffin Talk 16:55, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
  5. Support per above. Gizza (t)(c) 22:31, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
Oppose
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
PASSED
Removed, 5-0. --Thi (talk) 06:26, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Remove Glenn Miller

Not more important then John Coltrane who was removed. A very popular musician but not one with any resounding critical attention. Jazz having 12 representatives is too many in my opinion (Rock has too many too). Just does not have the impact on modern music required to be on a list of the 2000 most important people to live. Perfect for the level 5 list. Thelonious Monk is the Jazz we're missing and need, Paul Whiteman is the more vital version of Miller and he's not listed either. Miller's only achievement is being the best selling artist of his time, but considering bios like Whitney Houston, Elton John, AC/DC, Mariah Carey, Eminem and Metallica etc; that have been removed; that should not factor into being on a list like this.

Support
  1. Support as nom. GuzzyG (talk) 03:32, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
  2. Support We have removed several musicians that were more influential than Glenn Miller was. Also, we are eight articles over the quota in this section. ―Susmuffin Talk 04:56, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
  3. Support 12 representatives is a bit too high for a genre that was very popular for two to three decades but gradually went into decline. Gizza (t)(c) 05:35, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
  4. Weak support I supported removing John Coltrane, because in general there is too many musicians listed, although Coltrane was one of the most important jazz composers. --Thi (talk) 06:13, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
  5. Support T8612 (talk) 09:52, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose
Discuss
  • I agree, we should remove a few Rock musicians from this list. ―Susmuffin Talk 04:56, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
PASSED
5-0, removed. feminist (talk) 12:18, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Remove Jerome Kern

Only really "vital" for Show Boat - which does not make him vital for this list to me, he has even less scholar hits/wikidata languages then Cole Porter who is in the middle of being removed himself. Berlin/R&H/Webber/Sondheim are enough for musicals, which are not really that influential on world history. If something from him should be listed it should be Show Boat itself.

Support
  1. Support as nom. GuzzyG (talk) 09:12, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
  2. Support --Thi (talk) 10:05, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
  3. Support Show Boat is far more notable than the man who created it. ―Susmuffin Talk 20:42, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
  4. Support T8612 (talk) 09:49, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
  5. Support per above. Gizza (t)(c) 23:32, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose
Discuss
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
PASSED
7-1, removed. feminist (talk) 12:25, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Remove Frank Zappa

Controversial maybe; but Zappa is mainly a cult favorite. His pageviews (8,525,342) are not impressive for a modern rock performer. See my comments below on Springsteen that coincide with my Zappa nomination. "In 2000, he was ranked number 36 on VH1's 100 Greatest Artists of Hard Rock.[8] In 2004, Rolling Stone magazine ranked him at number 71 on its list of the "100 Greatest Artists of All Time",[9] and in 2011 at number 22 on its list of the "100 Greatest Guitarists of All Time"." from his lede only proves my point that he shouldn't be on here.

Support
  1. Support as nom. GuzzyG (talk) 09:12, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
  2. Support He was clearly less influential than several of the people that have been removed from this section. ―Susmuffin Talk 09:51, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
  3. Support --Thi (talk) 10:09, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
  4. Too niche for Lv 4 pbp 15:37, 23 August 2018 (UTC)
  5. Support if Rolling Stone (a magazine with a bias towards 1950s and 1960s rock) ranked him so low, it's a sign that Zappa shouldn't be listed at this level. Gizza (t)(c) 23:57, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
  6. Support niche. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 02:41, 1 September 2018 (UTC)
  7. Support. I like his music, but clearly not vital at this level. T8612 (talk) 09:50, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose Highly influential musician. "Many musicians, bands and orchestras from diverse genres have been influenced by Zappa's music. Rock artists like Alice Cooper, Larry LaLonde of Primus, Fee Waybill of the Tubes all cite Zappa's influence, as do progressive, alternative, electronic and avant-garde/experimental rock artists like Can, Pere Ubu, Soft Machine Henry Cow, Faust, Devo, Kraftwerk, Trey Anastasio of Phish, Jeff Buckley, John Frusciante, Steven Wilson, and The Aristocrats. Paul McCartney regarded Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band as the Beatles' Freak Out!, Jimi Hendrix, and heavy rock and metal acts like Black Sabbath, Simon Phillips, Mike Portnoy, Warren DeMartini,Steve Vai, Strapping Young Lad, System of a Down, and Clawfinger acknowledge Zappa's inspiration. On the classical music scene, Tomas Ulrich, Meridian Arts Ensemble, Ensemble Ambrosius and the Fireworks Ensemble regularly perform Zappa's compositions and quote his influence. Contemporary jazz musicians and composers Bill Frisell and John Zorn are inspired by Zappa, as is funk legend George Clinton. ... "Other artists affected by Zappa include ambient composer Brian Eno, new age pianist George Winston, electronic composer Bob Gluck, parodist artist and disk jockey Dr. Demento, parodist and novelty composer "Weird Al" Yankovic, industrial music pioneer Genesis P-Orridge, singer Cree Summer, and noise music artist Masami Akita of Merzbow." Dimadick (talk) 08:44, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
Discuss
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
PASSED
Removed, 7-0. --Thi (talk) 13:10, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Remove Bruce Springsteen

Springsteen is on the level of other rock acts we've removed like The Who, Nirvana, AC/DC, U2, Metallica and ones not listed like The Eagles and Sex Pistols. He's the rock version of Elton John, Whitney Houston, Garth Brooks and Eminem all of whom were removed. The only argument to keep is that his sales are a big amount, doesn't have the influence of Presley or Dylan and the pioneer status of Buddy Holly or Little Richard (who honestly, should be removed. When we have more rock musicians then romantic composers; we need to make some hard cuts to rock and this is it. GuzzyG (talk) 09:12, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

Support
  1. Support as nom. GuzzyG (talk) 09:12, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
  2. Support He is as slightly less important than Elton John, who was removed last year. ―Susmuffin Talk 09:32, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
  3. Support --Thi (talk) 10:11, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
  4. feminist (talk) 04:00, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
  5. Support His article does not even mention any lasting impact. Dimadick (talk) 16:50, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
  6. Support more comparable to the recent removals than the ones that are remaining as per nom. Gizza (t)(c) 01:21, 23 August 2018 (UTC)
  7. Support no lasting impact. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 01:35, 23 August 2018 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose
Discuss
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
PASSED
Moved, 5-0. --Thi (talk) 06:37, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Move Abraham, Daniel (biblical figure), David, Elijah, Ezra, Isaac, Isaiah, Ishmael, Jacob, Joseph (Genesis), Moses, and Solomon to Philosophy and Religion

While I am probably going to be dragged over the coals for this, I feel that this must be done. The historical consensus is that most these men were legendary figures, rather than historical ones. The others were never definitively proven to have been historical figures. Also, they should be listed with Noah, as the biblical figures should all be in the same place.

Support
  1. Support I am the nominator. ―Susmuffin Talk 07:55, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
  2. Support --Thi (talk) 08:02, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
  3. Support I agree. People where the historicity is not definitely established should absolutely not be listed in with established real people. Sorry. This should be concurrent with Abraham and Moses on the level 3 list and with the biblical people on the level 5 list aswell. GuzzyG (talk) 08:34, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
  4. Support, though I will also note that the historicity of many ancient people is difficult to definitively determine. But these in particular, most scholars now agree that they were most likely mythical. Rreagan007 (talk) 16:49, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
  5. Support They are mythological characters, not historical figures. Daniel for example: "The consensus of modern scholars is that Daniel never existed, and the book is a cryptic allusion to the reign of the 2nd century BCE Greek king Antiochus IV Epiphanes." Dimadick (talk) 23:03, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
Oppose
Discuss

Did you mean to exclude Elijah? He would be the only Old Testament figure remaining in People pbp 16:40, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

I must have forgotten to include him in this proposal. ―Susmuffin Talk 17:49, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
Isaiah is also listed. --Thi (talk) 06:47, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
Where should staying semi-legendary characters such like Roland, Don Juan and Ishikawa Goemon which are vital for level 5? Dawid2009 (talk) 20:05, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
There was a fictional character section in Arts and Lit, so I'd keep 'em there. pbp 13:24, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
Roland and Ishikawa are historical characters such like Harpagus or Juraj Janosik. Only The Song of Roland is relevant to art Dawid2009 (talk) 14:17, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
PASSED
6-0, added. feminist (talk) 12:55, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Add Louis Riel

To help provide a global perspective. Riel, a Metís revolutionary, is a big deal in Canada and in the North American indigenous community.  — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs)  06:30, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

Support
  1. Support as nominator. — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs)  06:30, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
  2. Support per nom. was gonna do this myself at one point. GuzzyG (talk) 01:07, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
  3. Support User:CamHat000099
  4. Support His political legacy is still under debate, over a century following his execution. "Riel's historical reputation has long been polarized between portrayals as a dangerous half-insane religious fanatic and rebel against the Canadian nation, or by contrast a heroic rebel who fought to protect his Francophone people from the unfair encroachments of an Anglophone national government. He is increasingly celebrated as a proponent of multiculturalism, although that downplays his primary commitment to Métis nationalism and political independence." Dimadick (talk) 23:16, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
  5. Support Neljack (talk) 09:05, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
  6. Support Gizza (t)(c) 23:36, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
Oppose
Discuss
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
PASSED
Removed, 6-0. --Thi (talk) 15:52, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Remove Björn Borg

We have way too many tennis players and he is the weakest. He never won the grand slam, which while Lenglen and Tilden have not either; considering the time frame that should not matter for them; modern tennis players like Borg should absolutely need a grand-slam to be on here. Not a vital biography for a limited human history covering world encyclopedia of the 2000 most important people.

Support
  1. Support as nom. GuzzyG (talk) 02:19, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
  2. Support --Thi (talk) 07:49, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
  3. Support We do not need to have ten tennis players on this list. ―Susmuffin Talk 00:34, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
  4. Support User:CamHat000099 While tennis is a vital sport 10 players is far too much.
  5. Support T8612 (talk) 09:37, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
  6. Support agree with above. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 23:41, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
Oppose
Discuss
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
NO CONSENSUS
3-3, not added. --Thi (talk) 13:18, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Add Planetarium

This belongs either to Astronomy or Technology section (Navigation and timekeeping, Optical technology or Space).

Support
  1. Support as nom. --Thi (talk) 11:12, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
  2. Support Key development in popularizing astronomical ideas. Dimadick (talk) 12:40, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
  3. Support - Vital at this level. Jusdafax (talk) 08:53, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose While technologically cool (and just cool in general), this isn't vital. It's a room showing planets and stars in a space museum. Museum or projector would be the vital ones, if anything. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 14:55, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
  2. Per Headbomb. feminist (talk) 13:14, 30 June 2018 (UTC)
  3. Oppose a planetarium is one type of science museum. There are many types of science museums and even more types of museums overall. See Museum#Types. None of the types are more vital than the others. Gizza (t)(c) 06:29, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
Discuss
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
PASSED
Added, 5-0. --Thi (talk) 09:07, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Add Max Ernst

"Max Ernst was a prominent German avant-garde artist who helped found both Dadaism and Surrealism. He worked in a variety of media including film, collage, painting, and frottage—a technique wherein he collected pencil rubbings of different objects surfaces as source material." [13] "Even though the French kicked off surrealism, the greatest surrealist art was made by Ernst." [14] [15]

Support
  1. Support as nom. --Thi (talk) 16:36, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
  2. Support Dimadick (talk) 16:38, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
  3. Support Neljack (talk) 09:02, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
  4. Support GuzzyG (talk) 09:18, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
  5. Support He was one of the most important pioneers of Surrealism and Dadaism. ―Susmuffin Talk 19:49, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
Oppose
Discuss
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
PASSED
5-0, added. --Thi (talk) 09:18, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Add Camille Pissarro

A key figure in the history of Impressionism and Post-Impressionism. For example his Boulevard Montmartre cityscape series is famous.

Support
  1. Support as nom. --Thi (talk) 18:01, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
  2. Support "In 1873 he helped establish a collective society of fifteen aspiring artists, becoming the "pivotal" figure in holding the group together and encouraging the other members. Art historian John Rewald called Pissarro the "dean of the Impressionist painters", not only because he was the oldest of the group, but also "by virtue of his wisdom and his balanced, kind, and warmhearted personality". Cézanne said "he was a father for me. A man to consult and a little like the good Lord," and he was also one of Gauguin's masters. Renoir referred to his work as "revolutionary", through his artistic portrayals of the "common man", as Pissarro insisted on painting individuals in natural settings without "artifice or grandeur". ... Pissarro is the only artist to have shown his work at all eight Paris Impressionist exhibitions, from 1874 to 1886. He "acted as a father figure not only to the Impressionists" but to all four of the major Post-Impressionists, including Georges Seurat, Paul Cézanne, Vincent van Gogh and Paul Gauguin." Dimadick (talk) 06:12, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
  3. Support - Agree that Pissarro is vital at L4. Jusdafax (talk) 18:17, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
  4. Support Removed my oppose; Pissaro should be on the list on my reading of his statistics in my personal list. These should be added Gustav Klimt, Mary Cassatt, Max Ernst, Mark Rothko, Artemisia Gentileschi and John Constable too; they significantly outdo most listed painters. GuzzyG (talk) 07:34, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
  5. Support He was vital to the development of Impressionism and Neo-Impressionism. ―Susmuffin Talk 19:49, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
Oppose


Discuss
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
PASSED
5–0, removed. --Rreagan007 (talk) 22:16, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Remove Avoirdupois system

We list ounce and pound at this level (as well as United States customary units and Imperial units), and there is too much overlap to also list this article separately here.

Support
  1. Support as nom. Rreagan007 (talk) 00:05, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
  2. Support --Thi (talk) 07:00, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
  3. Support good catch. Gizza (t)(c) 04:27, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
  4. Support The avoirdupois system's constituent units are more important than the system itself. ―Susmuffin Talk 21:30, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
  5. feminist (talk) 03:25, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
Oppose
Discuss
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
FAILED
1-3, not added. feminist (talk) 03:25, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Add Lambda-CDM model

This is the currently-favored model of the universe, and accurately describes most physical phenomena. 216.234.200.180 (talk) 20:37, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

Support
  1. 216.234.200.180 (talk) 20:37, 1 July 2018 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose. Big Bang is enough. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 22:07, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
  2. Oppose This topic is far too specific for this level. ―Susmuffin Talk 02:18, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
  3. Weak oppose, though subject may be vital enough for level 5. Since we already have Cosmic microwave background, which is the truly vital subject, I don't think we need this. Though if Cosmic microwave background reaches level 3 (which it seriously could), I'm open to having Lambda-CDM model here. — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs)  00:32, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
Discuss
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
FAILED
2-3, not added. feminist (talk) 03:22, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Add cross section

This is a very important concept, but it's difficult to explain why. 216.234.200.180 (talk) 20:37, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

Support
  1. 216.234.200.180 (talk) 20:37, 1 July 2018 (UTC)
  2. Support I agree with the assessment of the IP nom. power~enwiki (π, ν) 18:20, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose, not vital at all. Important to nuclear and particle physicists, no one else. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 16:53, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
  2. Oppose --Thi (talk) 17:13, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
  3. Oppose you will have to explain why it's vital when it isn't obvious to non-physicists. Gizza (t)(c) 23:05, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
Discuss

I doubt this nomination will succeed. Topics that take a significant amount of explanation to understand their importance are probably better suited to the level-5 list; I note Jordan curve theorem from mathematics as a similar example. power~enwiki (π, ν) 18:20, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
FAILED
1-3, not added. feminist (talk) 03:24, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Add particle decay and elementary particle

Two central concepts to particle physics. 216.234.200.180 (talk) 20:37, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

Support
  1. 216.234.200.180 (talk) 20:37, 1 July 2018 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose elementary particle. Particle is already there. At level 5 yes. Neutral for now on particle decay. I feel radiation is enough. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 17:22, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
  2. Oppose Standard model and Radioactive decay are sufficient at this level. power~enwiki (π, ν) 18:20, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
  3. Oppose We should not have overly specific topics on this list. ―Susmuffin Talk 18:46, 29 July 2018 (UTC)
Discuss

In regards to particle decay, I'm concerned that it's too similar to radioactive decay to list both at this level. Even the article says that the two terms are often used interchangeably. Rreagan007 (talk) 00:33, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Interwiki requirement?

Is there any interest in establishing a minimum number of interwiki links required to be included on this list? pbp 18:48, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

I am not sure it is good idea. For example Folk taxonomy has 3 entires in Wikidata. Although Taxonomy (biology) is at the level 3. Also some articles have a lot of wikidata entires due to cross-wiki spam, not due to their good vitality Dawid2009 (talk) 19:34, 1 September 2018 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
PASSED
5-0, removed. feminist (talk) 01:42, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Remove Harriet Beecher Stowe

She was only prominent for having written Uncle Tom's Cabin, which is already on this list. According to the frequently-cited The Atlantic list of "The 100 Most Influential Figures in American History," William Jennings Bryan and Earl Warren were more influential than she was. Neither of them are on this list. [16]

Support
  1. Support I am the nominator. ―Susmuffin Talk 18:49, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
  2. Support. Previous nomination. --Thi (talk) 19:13, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
  3. Support Neljack (talk) 09:07, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
  4. Support the arguments to keep her cite her being in the top 50 of that list but there's other more important people in the top 50 that are not. at least she's covered by the book. We didn't have the level 5 list then either. GuzzyG (talk) 09:17, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
  5. Support Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 18:17, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
Oppose
Discuss
  • If we're going to bring up the "Atlantic Monthly" list, shouldn't we instead be removing one of the many American authors who isn't even in Atlantic's Top 100? pbp 19:10, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
Well to be fair Hammett is going to be removed most likely and others will probably follow. GuzzyG (talk) 22:41, 25 August 2018 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Remove libraries

This follows the previous nomination at Wikipedia_talk:Vital_articles/Level/4/Archive_58#Remove 9 libraries. However, each library is nominated separately. I think these particular libraries are more suitable at Level 5 instead of Level 4.

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
FAILED
4–4, not removed. --Rreagan007 (talk) 02:57, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Remove New York Public Library

Support
  1. Support removal as nom. feminist (talk) 04:39, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
  2. Support. --Thi (talk) 07:01, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
  3. Support power~enwiki (π, ν) 04:41, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
  4. Support We do not need to have two American libraries on this list. ―Susmuffin Talk 20:45, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose "With nearly 53 million items and 92 locations, the New York Public Library is the second largest public library in the United States (behind the Library of Congress) and the third largest in the world." Dimadick (talk) 15:35, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
  2. Oppose per Dimadick. Thanks for the ping. Jusdafax (talk) 08:01, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
  3. Oppose per Dimadick. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 01:32, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
  4. Oppose per Dimadick. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 22:16, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
Discuss

@Power~enwiki, Rreagan007, Thi, Presidentman, Dimadick, Jusdafax, and Semmendinger: These proposals are the continuation of Power~enwiki's earlier proposal. ―Susmuffin Talk 18:31, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
FAILED
2–3, not removed. --Rreagan007 (talk) 02:58, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Remove National Library of China

Support
  1. Support removal as nom. feminist (talk) 04:39, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
  2. Support. --Thi (talk) 07:01, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose "With a collection of over 35 million items, it is the largest library in Asia and one of the largest in the world. It holds the largest collections of Chinese literature and historical documents in the world". Dimadick (talk) 15:29, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
  2. Oppose per Dimadick. Vital for L4. Jusdafax (talk) 08:01, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
  3. Oppose If it is the largest library in the entirety of Asia, then it should be on this list. ―Susmuffin Talk 20:45, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
Discuss
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
PASSED
6–1, removed. --Rreagan007 (talk) 03:04, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Remove National Diet Library

Support
  1. Support removal as nom. feminist (talk) 04:39, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
  2. Support. --Thi (talk) 07:01, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
  3. Support The library's contents are giantic, but it is relatively new. Only 70 years have passed since its foundation in 1948. According to the article, among its most valuable collections are documents from the Edo period (1603-1868). It is unclear whether it preserves anything older. Dimadick (talk) 15:27, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
  4. Support power~enwiki (π, ν) 04:41, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
  5. Support collection isn't substantial enough. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 05:19, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
  6. Support This library is rather young and simply does not compare with the other libraries on this list. ―Susmuffin Talk 20:45, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. I've skimmed the lede and found out that this library is among the largest on earth (according to list of largest libraries, it is the sixth largest in catalogued size), and Japan is a vital country, thus this is vital at this level.--RekishiEJ (talk) 10:02, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
Discuss
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
FAILED
2–3, not removed. --Rreagan007 (talk) 02:59, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Remove Russian State Library

Support
  1. Support removal as nom. feminist (talk) 04:39, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
  2. Support. --Thi (talk) 07:01, 1 August 2018 (UTC)¨
Oppose
  1. Oppose Centuries-old library with vast contents.Dimadick (talk) 15:21, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
  2. Oppose Gotta keep at least one Russian one. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 05:19, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
  3. Oppose This is the more vital of the two Russian libraries that are on this list. It has every single book that was published in the Soviet Union and the Russian Federation in its archives. ―Susmuffin Talk 20:45, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
Discuss
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
PASSED
6–2, removed. --Rreagan007 (talk) 03:03, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Remove National Library of Russia

Support
  1. Support removal as nom. feminist (talk) 04:39, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
  2. Support, I don't know if I support the removal of both Russian libraries, but this is the lesser of the two. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 01:25, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
  3. Support. --Thi (talk) 07:01, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
  4. Support power~enwiki (π, ν) 04:41, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
  5. Support not vital. Gizza (t)(c) 06:18, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
  6. Support We do not need to have both Russian libraries on this list. ―Susmuffin Talk 20:45, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose Centuries-old library with vast contents.Dimadick (talk) 15:19, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
  2. Oppose per Dimadick. I see this vital at this level. Jusdafax (talk) 05:09, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
Discuss
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
FAILED
2–5, not removed. --Rreagan007 (talk) 03:00, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Remove Bibliothèque nationale de France

Support
  1. Support removal as nom. feminist (talk) 04:39, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
  2. Support. --Thi (talk) 07:01, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose BNF is one of the oldest libraries in the world, has insane amounts of documents related to Europe from the middle-ages onwards, as well as those related to the French colonization. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 01:23, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
  2. Oppose Established in 1461, it is one of the oldest and largest libraries in existence. The article gives some estimates of its contents: "4,286,000 documents; 533,000 books; 131,000 maps; 96,000 manuscripts; 1,208,000 images; 1,907,000 newspapers and magazines; 47,800 sheets of music; 50,000 audio recordings; 358,000 objects". Dimadick (talk) 15:15, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
  3. Oppose - Clearly vital, per above opposes. Iconic among the great world libraries. Jusdafax (talk) 05:14, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
  4. Oppose This is an absurdly old library with a vast variety of documents that are from from the Middle Ages to modernity. ―Susmuffin Talk 20:45, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
  5. Oppose per above. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 01:32, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
Discuss
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
FAILED
2-3, not added. --Thi (talk) 11:03, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Add Arnold Schwarzenegger

This is another controversial one but one that at least has to be up for nomination and will be criticized considering the recentest trend and especially the fact that i am against it. (Ignoring that sports icons are a recentest endeavor.) Now the acting and political career alone catapults him past majority of the listed athletes; he is the supreme bodybuilding/health and fitness icon of the 20th century. Health and fitness is alot more integral to human life then any other sport - now the competitive side of that and pomp and circumstance of a bodybuilding competition may be off putting to some but it is without doubt that he is a general fitness/health icon, which we list none - yes Ronnie Coleman has won more Olympias but he is refined strictly to the niche of Bodybuilding while Arnold has worldwide, enduring appeal. We are over the limit generally but sports should have a fixed limit of 100 and this would fit.

Support
  1. Support as nom. GuzzyG (talk) 02:19, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
  2. Support Dawid2009 (talk) 10:22, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose Bodybuilding does not require a representative. Also, Arnold Schwarzenegger is better known as an actor than as a bodybuilder or as a politician. His acting career does not compare with the careers of Marlon Brando or Marilyn Monroe. Furthermore, his political career has been irrelevant, and will remain so, unless he is actually elected to the Presidency at some point in the future. If he manages to become President of the United States, then he would still have to do something that would warrant inclusion on this list. In finality, he is notable for many things, but vital for none. ―Susmuffin Talk 16:45, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
  2. Oppose --Thi (talk) 16:45, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
  3. Oppose I'd have to sit down with aliens for a lot more than 10,000 topics before needing to explain the importance of the impact of Arnold Schwarzenegger on society. He got good/successful at a lot of different things, but save for bodybuilding, rarely excelled to the point that he's an unmissable in his field. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 17:47, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
Discuss

Out of Schwarzenegger's three main fields of notability, I think he is more famous for his acting career than anything else. That was where he originally was on the list. Gizza (t)(c) 11:52, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

I agree with this assessment of Schwarzenegger's career. He is best known for being a muscular block of wood that appeared in various action films in the 1980s and 1990s. ―Susmuffin Talk 16:35, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
For everyone's information, the last discussion on Schwarzenegger was in August 2014 (link to the archives). I had a slightly different opinion then, saying that bodybuilding was his forte, though thinking about it a bit more I agree with Susmuffin now. FWIW, the current article on him gives most due weight to his political career. Make of that what you will but don't think he tips over the line on anything. Gizza (t)(c) 22:41, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Bodybuilding does not need a representative, i agree. In that case it'd be Ronnie Coleman or Eugen Sandow. But he is THE global icon of health/fitness/gym culture which almost certainly requires a representative based on worldwide participation. Health and fitness impacts everyone and more and more people are going to the gym. He won't be recorded in film/American politics history most likely, but he will be in fitness history. Robin Williams was listed under comedy even though his stand-up was unknown and he was famous for his acting - yes he did comedic roles but it was the serious ones that put him on this list. Doing multiple things should count, his acting career and politics career have gave him a bigger impact on more people then most athletes listed. Bruce Lee got famous from film but it was entirely focused on martial arts, which is why he's listed under martial arts. Just like Arnold's roles are almost completely focused on his fitness/size/body. On the level 5 list it's the same with Dwayne Johnson in professional wrestlers over being listed in actors. Physical culture is important, has been forever and will continue to grow and he is the symbol of it - it does not have a set place so "bodybuilding" in sports will have to do but it's bigger then that. Just like we do not list a chef when we should have one as food impacts everyone and chefs have been around for centuries. GuzzyG (talk) 09:05, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
"unless he is actually elected to the Presidency at some point in the future" He is not eligible for that position. The natural-born-citizen clause of the United States Constitution prevents people who were not born as American citizens, to ever be elected Presidents of the United States. "This requirement was intended to protect the nation from foreign influence." Dimadick (talk) 23:53, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
"Out of Schwarzenegger's three main fields of notability, I think he is more famous for his acting career than anything else." Yep. He has been a household name in Greece (where I live) for several decades now, and this is mostly due to his films. Few remember he used to be a bodybuilder, and his political career received little to no attention in the Greek press. As for his box office success as an actor, Box Office Mojo has an ever-growing list of actors By the total gross of all their films. They estimate Schwarzenegger's "total gross" to 1,885 million dollars. He is currently the 148th most successful actor on the list. Dimadick (talk) 00:09, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Does anyone who opposes or is neutral have a better option - like a personal trainer? How can there be a Mime artist, magician, American television hosts and a mob boss (stuck to a specific locale), but not someone representing health/fitness culture? How many people go to a gym with the specific influence of Arnold compared to who go watch a magic show (not even having to be influenced by Houdini) or god forbid a mime performance?. His wikidata stats and pageviews beat the majority of the listed actors anyway; you can be highly important in two fields; which only helps his case. It's not like he'd be out of place. People are just comparing him to others in the wrong field and minimizing his right field as a small sport when he's more then that and he represents physical culture as a whole. This is a nearly sixty year career spanning multiple fields and being a icon in two and THE DEFINITIVE icon in one. That's a longer career then most entertainers/artists on this list and most certainly sportsman. The only reason he's not being voted on is because he's alive (like most of the sports section...) but i guess we will just have to revisit this and waste our time in 20 or so years. A chef should be on for the exact same reason and we should have five fashion people (not just Wintour/Chanel). GuzzyG (talk) 17:32, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Put it like this, he's a triple threat: the politics career keeps his name for certain in the history books; the film career keeps his name for certain in popular culture and the sports career cements his legacy and influence in something which people on every continent participate in (physical culture). You'd be hard pressed to find a entertainer/sportsperson with that amount of staying power. GuzzyG (talk) 17:36, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
  • It's exactly the same thing as Bruce Lee (except less people partake in martial arts compared to the gym). They're both known for their films but they're mainly vital and have influence in their fields and they're both bad actors; but we don't compare Lee to Brando; why not? They both have the same amount of wiki languages BL [17] and AS [18]; roughly the same amount of page edits/editor activity BL [19] and AS[20]; and Arnold wins in pageviews [21]; now you could say it's because he is cemented in pop culture and alive and he is; but being the governor now has him permanently cemented in history more so then Lee.I'm just not seeing the logic here for opposition unless it's purely because he's alive but in that case we better start pruning the whole list then. I'd love to hear why Lee is more vital without the fact that he's dead or his ethnicity; the fact is they're both mega film stars but they have extreme icon status in a different field; but physical culture is mainstream more so then martial arts infact you could argue martial arts is apart of gym culture. GuzzyG (talk) 17:54, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
    • Note that Gym culture isn't vital. We don't even have an article on it. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 18:07, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
      • Because it's listed under Fitness culture, now explain with statistics like me instead of snark; how is something 27% of the adult population participate in less deserving of a representative then any of the sports listed, or more then Al Capone (what influence?) or the mime artist and magician. Also considering the fact the gist of your Lenny Bruce removal argument was that he wasn't famous only influential so he should not be on the list; again how is Arnold not famous? I can do this all day, i literally have a spreadsheet of evidence to support every single one of my claims on this list and i don't go off "my fav" or what i personally think with a little touch of snark. GuzzyG (talk) 18:21, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
        • Oh will you shut the hell up about Lenny Bruce. No one cares. And very, very, few people go to the gym because of Arnold, care about him, or even talk about him. People go there to run, to lift, to socialize, to lose weight, to stay healthy. And, I'll also point out, Fitness culture also isn't considered vital at any level. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 18:40, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
          • No, but bodybuilding is; any other insults you wanna throw out while you ignore the data? Great to see finally that this list is based off of peoples emotions/insults and not actual data. Thanks. GuzzyG (talk) 18:47, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
            • And bodybuilding doesn't need a representative, and if we had one, there are other candidates with a better claim. And, if you must know, I also go to the gym / work out regularly. But my personal interests hardly matter here. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 19:10, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
              • Are you going to waste time nitpicking over words used or actually address the statistics i have brought up, if you can't even acknowledge that Arnold spread fitness culture around the world via his movies then you can't be helped; tell me specifically how a near 60 year career with major influence in a field not covered is nothing; tell me exactly how he is less vital then Bruce Lee without using him being dead or his ethnicity. Tell me how a mime artist, magic or the mafia needs a representative more then health & fitness, if you only can bring up your feelings and snark then i have nothing left to say. I see you've seen me say there's better candidates in bodybuilding itself but only if you count winning Mr. Olympia then Ronnie Coleman has one more yes and Eugen Sandow started it but just like Bruce he's not famous and just a pioneer; but considering the second major competition is named Arnold Sports Festival and the impact of Pumping Iron (which started his film career; it's not an independent thing) he's clearly THE guy and considering his politics career his name will last longer then every other sports person listed except for the obvious big ones. Obviously i am wasting a severe amount of time on this list but it's gotten to the point of outlandishness. GuzzyG (talk) 19:23, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
    • I've already addressed this in my original vote. It may not be addressed to your standards of being addressed, but I really don't care about that. You don't have monopoly on opinion. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 19:47, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
      • I don't have monopoly on opinion but it's clear you vote with snark and feeling other then looking at objective facts because you're not answering my data or questions; you're just responding blankly regarding nothing. Also that's bullshit because i asked you how you would explain a mime, Al Capone, Houdini, Bruce Lee etc to an alien first and you've just been sarcastic. GuzzyG (talk) 19:55, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
  • "very, very, few people go to the gym because of Arnold, care about him, or even talk about him." How do you know? Have you studied surveys on the subject? Dimadick (talk) 19:26, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
    • Just go and talk to people. 64 year old Monica in the Zumba class doesn't care about the governator, neither does William the crossfitter. Or James the runner. Mike the lifter may care, but most people lifters don't, even if they obviously know of Schwarzenegger. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 19:47, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
      • Does Joe the average citizen care about Al Capone or the mime or Harry Houdini? How does that determine vitality? I brought up the 27% of the adult population statistic not to say every single one worships Arnold but to say it deserves a representative. GuzzyG (talk) 19:55, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
        • And we have plenty of athletes on here. Bodybuilders are not 27% of people. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 20:00, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
          • You continue to bring up niche subjects and irrelevant arguments avoiding the subject when we're talking about fitness as a whole. We are at the agreed upon limit of athletes at 100 and more seem likely to be removed; unless you want another team sport athlete we have to start somewhere and a uncovered field of which 27% of adults are actively apart of makes senses; but you continue to bring up your personal opinion and ignoring the laid out data. Anyone can see this is going nowhere and it's a waste of my time as you have never refuted any of my points; it's such a shame this list has deteriorated to a point where people vote based on their opinion of the person. Anyone can see "noone cares or talks about Arnold" is an obviously ludicrous flat out wrong statement that does not belong in a serious discussion; and it shows your opinion of him. These vote need to become like an AFD discussion. GuzzyG (talk) 15:01, 23 August 2018 (UTC)
            • I quite like Arnold, but me liking Arnold doesn't make him vital (or not vital). The failure here is that you equate bodybuilding with fitness so you can say it's something "27% of people" do. It's not. Arnold is one of the most famous bodybuilders, sure, but he's a lot more known for being a meat mountain in 80/90s action movies. He wouldn't be on Level 4 as an actor, he wouldn't be on Level 4 as a politician, and so you're left with bodybuilding, and that's not something I feel needs representation at Level 4, and if it did warrant representation, there are other bodybuilders with better claims of vitality than Arnold, e.g. Eugen Sandow. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 15:20, 23 August 2018 (UTC)
              • This was your argument for Lenny Bruce's removal "To quote Francis Darwin "credit goes to the man who convinces the world, not to whom the idea first occurs."; but now that it fits your agenda you bring up the man who had the first idea for it; first "noone cares about arnold" but now you care; you refuse to address why fitness doesn't deserve a rep but mime performance, magic, the mafia or martial arts do; i defer to my "triple threat" comment as to why being all three is important; aka politics = history, films = household name recognition and fitness leave massive influence/legacy. That's more then the majority of athletes; but you do you; but it's clear as day otherwise. GuzzyG (talk) 15:37, 23 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Let me ask this: do we have a crisis of highly-viewed but poorly-written articles? Is the situation more a) most Wikipedia articles are poorly written, and this is especially problematic with highly-viewed articles, or b) highly-viewed articles are also highly-edited articles, and often are better-sourced than lower-viewed articles? pbp 01:16, 23 August 2018 (UTC)
    • Honestly it's A; most biographies are poorly written; except if they're classical music related. GuzzyG (talk) 15:01, 23 August 2018 (UTC)
  • I have not voted yea or nay on this and it is unlikely I will. I believe that Arnold is not significant at the Lv 4 level as an actor, and not significant at either the Lv 4 or 5 levels as a politician. While I'm somewhat sympathetic to the idea that bodybuilding/personal fitness/personal health deserves a representative at this level, I'm not sure Arnold is the best choice. pbp 15:51, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

"a) most Wikipedia articles are poorly written, and this is especially problematic with highly-viewed articles, or b) highly-viewed articles are also highly-edited articles" Honestly, highly-edited articles typically translate to highly-vandalized articles. I have added several articles to my Watchlist, just to keep track of the frequent vandalisms. Dimadick (talk) 19:20, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
NO CONSENSUS
2-2, no votes after 30 days. --Thi (talk) 11:05, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Add Doom (1993 video game)

The granddaddy of all First-person shooters, and by far one of the most influential video games of all time (multiplayer, modability, widespread controversy, critical acclaim, half a million Doom clone, a technological marvel/industry leader in game design, featuring one of the most famous nameless protagonists etc...). It has had entire books dedicated to it and its effect on popular culture (Masters of Doom), not just on gaming itself.

Support
  1. Support As proposer. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 18:52, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
  2. Support Large impact on the industry. "Doom was influential and dozens of new first-person shooter titles appeared following Doom's release, and they were often referred to as "Doom clones" rather than "first-person shooters". The term "Doom clone" was used to describe the style of gameplay in Doom-like games. While the term was initially popular, it was, after 1996, gradually replaced by "first-person shooter", and the phrase "first-person shooter" had firmly superseded "Doom clone" around 1998. Some of these were certainly "clones", hastily assembled and quickly forgotten, while others explored new grounds of the genre and were highly acclaimed. Many of the games closely imitated features in Doom such as the selection of weapons and cheat codes. Doom's principal rivals were Apogee's Rise of the Triad and Looking Glass Studios' System Shock. The popularity of Star Wars-themed WADs is rumored to have been the factor that prompted LucasArts to create their first-person shooter Dark Forces." Dimadick (talk) 05:48, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose. Not vital at this level. --Thi (talk) 19:58, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
  2. I'm not sure any title is vital at Lv. 4 pbp 20:02, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
Discuss
I'm partial to Purplebackpack89 (talk · contribs) argument that individual titles may not be vital here. I just looked at Pokémon and went "If this qualifies, then Doom certainly does". We might be better off removing everything under video game (including Video game console). Or really think about which games belong here. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 20:12, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
I think it'd be better to list a few high-level articles (History of video games, Video game genre) instead of any specific titles.--LaukkuTheGreit (Talk•Contribs) 20:24, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
Why? The video game industry is an important sector in modern economy with an estimated 25.1 billion in profits in 2010. Dimadick (talk) 05:54, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
IMO that depends on whether video game coverage on level 4 is to be expanded beyond a mere 5-6 articles; if so, I do support the inclusion of specific titles. Video games are so diverse a medium that listing only 3 or 4 titles (plus "Video game" and "Video game console") isn't going to be very useful compared to same amount of more general articles. I'm against totally removing video game articles though, and I'd rather see video game articles expanded to maybe a total of 8 to include specific titles alongside general articles.--LaukkuTheGreit (Talk•Contribs) 11:59, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
I would allow Pong and Tetris to remain on this list. ―Susmuffin Talk 18:43, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
FAILED
1-3, failed. --Thi (talk) 11:07, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Swap: remove Horsehead Nebula, add Tarantula Nebula

The former is an object that hasn't attracted much attention other than a beautiful Hubble photograph, and is not visible at all to amateurs; I can think of at least ten more vital nebulae off the top of my head. The latter, on the other hand, is the most intense star-forming region in the Local Group, has attracted an absurd amount of attention by astronomers, and is easily visible to amateurs. 216.234.200.180 (talk) 20:37, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

Support
  1. 216.234.200.180 (talk) 20:37, 1 July 2018 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose Trading one Nebula another doesn't make much sense unless there is a massive scientific case to be made for one over the other, which I don't see. Horsehead is more famous by a long shot, and a better article, so I don't see why we should switch. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 21:57, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
  2. Oppose --Thi (talk) 08:27, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
  3. Oppose The Horsehead Nebula is far more prominent than the Tarantula Nebula. ―Susmuffin Talk 23:26, 28 July 2018 (UTC)
Discuss
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
PASSED
6-0, removed. --Thi (talk) 20:27, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Remove Sea breeze

Not vital.

Support
  1. Support as nominator. wumbolo ^^^ 21:24, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
  2. Support agree. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 21:25, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
  3. Support We should not have overly specific articles at this level. ―Susmuffin Talk 00:11, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
  4. Support Rreagan007 (talk) 20:28, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
  5. Strong support far too nebulous and subjective to include.  — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs)  00:38, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
  6. Support Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 18:31, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
Oppose
Discuss
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
PASSED
6-0, added. feminist (talk) 23:37, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Add Giacomo Casanova

Giacomo Casanova was one of the most prominent men of his time. He was one of Europe's the most prolific travellers; by the time he died, he had travelled thousands of kilometres. Over the course of his travels, Casanova interacted with many of the prominent men and women of his time. He also had an absurd number of affairs. These affairs were highly elaborate and are prominently featured in nearly every study of the man. His very name has come to be synonymous with "womaniser." He also wrote several books on various topics. After his adventuring days had come to an end, Casanova became melancholic. His doctor suggested that he write his memoirs. The result was the Histoire de ma vie, which is considered to be one of the most accurate sources on the social lives of Europeans during the 18th century.

Support
  1. Support I am the nominator. ―Susmuffin Talk 04:57, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
  2. Support --Thi (talk) 06:14, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
  3. Support Yes, another one i had planned for ages. If you were thinking of Ayn Rand, Alexander Pope, Pierre Beaumarchais, Charles Perrault, George Sand or Joost van den Vondel then we're on the same wavelength. Even though they've been nominated before and failed i still think Jack the Ripper and almost certainly Diana, Princess of Wales should be on the list. Diana has to be the most historical/biggest household name combination not on the list. Bonus: other then Diana/Rand they're all from before the 20th century. GuzzyG (talk) 07:39, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
  4. Support Significant adventurer and writer. "Casanova was recognized by his contemporaries as an extraordinary person, a man of far-ranging intellect and curiosity. Casanova has been recognized by posterity as one of the foremost chroniclers of his age. He was a true adventurer, traveling across Europe from end to end in search of fortune, seeking out the most prominent people of his time to help his cause. He was a servant of the establishment and equally decadent as his times, but also a participant in secret societies and a seeker of answers beyond the conventional. He was religious, a devout Catholic, and believed in prayer: "Despair kills; prayer dissipates it; and after praying man trusts and acts." Along with prayer he also believed in free will and reason, but clearly did not subscribe to the notion that pleasure-seeking would keep him from heaven." ..."He was, by vocation and avocation, a lawyer, clergyman, military officer, violinist, con man, pimp, gourmand, dancer, businessman, diplomat, spy, politician, medic, mathematician, social philosopher, cabalist, playwright, and writer. He wrote over twenty works, including plays and essays, and many letters. His novel Icosameron is an early work of science fiction." ... "Born of actors, he had a passion for the theater and for an improvised, theatrical life. But with all his talents, he frequently succumbed to the quest for pleasure and sex, often avoiding sustained work and established plans, and got himself into trouble when prudent action would have served him better. His true occupation was living largely on his quick wits, steely nerves, luck, social charm, and the money given to him in gratitude and by trickery." Dimadick (talk) 08:57, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
  5. Support simply a biography you would expect to find in an encyclopedia of 10,000 articles. Gizza (t)(c) 23:34, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
  6. Support, per DaGizza, mostly. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 22:27, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
Oppose
Discuss
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
PASSED:

8-0, added. feminist (talk) 07:22, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Add Pierre de Coubertin

Founder of the olympics, need i say more? Has had arguably more impact then anyone listed in the sports section.

Support
  1. Support as nom. GuzzyG (talk) 01:45, 1 September 2018 (UTC)
  2. Support Absolutely pbp 02:26, 1 September 2018 (UTC)
  3. Support He is widely regarded as the father of the modern Olympic Games. ―Susmuffin Talk 03:29, 1 September 2018 (UTC)
  4. Support He romanticized the ancient Olympic Games, and created an Olympic movement which barely resembles them; based on his own ideals. "A number of scholars have criticized Coubertin's legacy. David C. Young believes that Coubertin's assertion that ancient Olympic athletes were amateurs was incorrect. The issue is the subject of scholarly debate. Young and others argue that the athletes of the ancient Games were professional, while opponents led by Pleket argue that the earliest Olympic athletes were in fact amateur, and that the Games only became professionalized after about 480 BC. Coubertin agreed with this latter view, and saw this professionalization as undercutting the morality of the competition. ... Further, Young asserts that the effort to limit international competition to amateur athletes, which Coubertin was a part of, was in fact part of efforts to give the upper classes greater control over athletic competition, removing such control from the working classes. Coubertin may have played a role in such a movement, but his defenders argue that he did so unconscious of any class repercussions." ... "However, it is clear that his romanticized vision of the Olympic Games was fundamentally different from that described in the historical record. For example, Coubertin's idea that participation is more important than winning ("L'important c'est de participer") is at odds with the ideals of the Greeks. The Apostle Paul, writing in the first century to Christians in the city of Corinth where the Isthmian Games were held, reflects this in his writings when he says, "Do you not know that in a race all the runners run, but only one gets the prize? Run in such a way as to get the prize", (1 Corinthians 9:24)." ... "Coubertin's assertion that the Games were the impetus for peace was also an exaggeration; the peace which he spoke of only existed to allow athletes to travel safely to Olympia, and neither prevented the outbreak of wars nor ended ongoing ones." Dimadick (talk) 09:03, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
  5. Support T8612 (talk) 09:47, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
  6. Support per above. Makes sense for founders/inventors of things and concepts on L3 to nearly always be on L4. Gizza (t)(c) 23:27, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
  7. Support Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 18:19, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
  8. Support. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 22:28, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose
Discuss
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
PASSED:

8-0, added. feminist (talk) 07:28, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Add Louis Braille

Inventor of Braille, highly important topic in an area in which we lack.

Support
  1. Support as nom. GuzzyG (talk) 01:45, 1 September 2018 (UTC)
  2. Support He created a writing system that is widely used by blind people. This writing system has had a massive effect on the educational attainment and employment status of the visually impaired. Approximately 90% of all American blind people that can read Braille are employed. Only 33% of the American blind people who can not read Braille are currently employed. ―Susmuffin Talk 08:47, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
  3. Support Dimadick (talk) 09:04, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
  4. Support T8612 (talk) 09:46, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
  5. Support great suggestion. Gizza (t)(c) 23:25, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
  6. Support duh. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 23:40, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
  7. Support Dawid2009 (talk) 05:03, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
  8. Support Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 18:19, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose
Discuss
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
PASSED
LeBron James 6-0 added, Larry Bird 5-1 removed. feminist (talk) 09:12, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Add LeBron James

For above disscussion. Basketball is in the top three team sports worldwide and James clearly is one of greatest basketball players in history. Disscussion about add LeBron James would be valuable. He has 8-th place in toplistoftheworld (Michael Jordan and other various sport figures from the level 4 are much lower than him). When we check in Google: LeBron is better than Jordan [22] or James LeBron is better than Michael Jordan certainly we will have more results than Messi is better than Maradaona or Lionel Messi is better than Diego Maradaona ([23]. Some time ago it was even 55 000 000 results. What do you think?

Support
  1. support as nom. Dawid2009 (talk) 06:25, 23 August 2018 (UTC)
  2. support "James' NBA accomplishments are extensive and include four NBA Most Valuable Player Awards, three NBA Finals MVP Awards, two Olympic gold medals, three All-Star Game MVP awards, and an NBA scoring title. He is the all-time NBA playoffs scoring leader and has amassed fourteen NBA All-Star Game appearances, twelve All-NBA First Team designations, and five All-Defensive First Team honors." Dimadick (talk) 19:01, 23 August 2018 (UTC)
  3. Support He is frequently regarded as the best basketball player in the history of the sport. ―Susmuffin Talk 20:24, 24 August 2018 (UTC)
  4. Support as swap of Larry Bird A couple of years ago, Larry Bird was legit a top six player of all time and LeBron wasn't. Now, the opposite is true. pbp 20:25, 24 August 2018 (UTC)
  5. Support as swap of Larry Bird GuzzyG (talk) 00:07, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
  6. Support James is now clearly one of the two best basketball players of all time. Neljack (talk) 08:16, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
Oppose
Discuss
  • Would support a swap with Larry Bird. pbp 15:43, 23 August 2018 (UTC)
  • I agree, if we add Lebron James, then we must remove another basketball player. ―Susmuffin Talk 17:02, 23 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Currently we have 6 basketball players and 6 baseball players so addition instead swapping would be right. In my opinion if we focused on removing people better option would be removing people from individual sports than team sports. For example Marit Bjørgen is listed at the level 4 while Matti Nykänen even is not listed at the level 5 although he has more results in google. Dawid2009 (talk) 17:26, 24 August 2018 (UTC)
  • So the most awarded medalist in winter games history is less vital because she has less google results; are you serious? and he is listed on the level 5 list??? GuzzyG (talk) 18:51, 24 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Agree with Guzzy. Bjørgen belongs in the VA4. pbp 19:38, 24 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Did I mendioned that Nykanen is more vital based on google results? I mistakly have mentioned TWO level difference and my comment was mainly about comparing number of people in individual sports with number of people in team sports. Yes, he is, I have not noticed him that he is included to skiing among other sports figures from various skiing, my mistake. I though that if ski jump is included, skiing will be divided into parts. Anyway eventually we could even did it? Alpine snowboarding this is not the same sport what Alpine skiing, very excatly such like cross-country this is not alpine skiing and we have sports at the level 5 where is one person. Dawid2009 (talk) 19:56, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

Remove Larry Bird

This was first proposed year ago. "Six basketball players (all American men) feels like one too many to me. Larry Bird seems the least essential of the ones listed."

Support
  1. Support as nom. --Thi (talk) 19:39, 24 August 2018 (UTC)
  2. Support He is the least important of the basketball players that are presently on this list. ―Susmuffin Talk 20:24, 24 August 2018 (UTC)
  3. Support as swap of LeBron A couple of years ago, Larry Bird was legit a top six player of all time and LeBron wasn't. Now, the opposite is true. pbp 20:25, 24 August 2018 (UTC)
  4. Support as swap of LeBron GuzzyG (talk) 00:07, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
  5. Support Neljack (talk) 08:22, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose for the same reasons as last time. Rreagan007 (talk) 19:49, 24 August 2018 (UTC)
Discuss
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
PASSED:

5-0, swapped. feminist (talk) 07:54, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Remove Kitakyushu, add Sendai

Of the ten Japanese cities currently on the list, Kitakyushu has the smallest population and is dwarfed by nearby Fukuoka. In contrast, Sendai is a larger city from a region of Japan currently without representation. feminist (talk) 07:13, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

Support
  1. Support swap as proposer. feminist (talk) 07:13, 21 July 2018 (UTC)
  2. Support per nom. Gizza (t)(c) 03:38, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
  3. Support --Thi (talk) 07:01, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
  4. Support Hanif Al Husaini (talk) 10:05, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
  5. Support According to our list of List of cities in Japan, Sendai is the 12th most populous city of Japan, while Kitakyushu is the 13th one. Sendai is only surpassed by (in order): Tokyo/Special wards of Tokyo (1st), Yokohama (2nd), Osaka (3rd), Nagoya (4th), Sapporo (5th), Kobe (6th), Kyoto (7th), Fukuoka (8th), Kawasaki, Kanagawa (9th), Saitama, Saitama (10th), and Hiroshima (11th). Sendai is the last city on the list with a population of over 1 million people. The city is also a major tourist destination: "The most famous festival in Sendai is Tanabata, which attracts more than 2 million visitors every year and is the largest Tanabata Festival in Japan. It is relatively quiet compared to other traditional Japanese festivals, because its main attractions are intricate Tanabata decorations." Dimadick (talk) 14:36, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
Oppose
Discuss
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
PASSED:

9-0, added. feminist (talk) 07:57, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Add Kuwait City

If we are to add Doha, we should also add Kuwait City, which historically has been larger than Doha. feminist (talk) 07:25, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

Support
  1. Support as proposer. feminist (talk) 07:13, 21 July 2018 (UTC)
  2. Support Yes I also thought that Kuwait City should have been added before Doha. Gizza (t)(c) 03:38, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
  3. Support --Thi (talk) 07:02, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
  4. Support Hanif Al Husaini (talk) 10:05, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
  5. Support Dimadick (talk) 14:44, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
  6. Support  Carlwev  16:31, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
  7. Support power~enwiki (π, ν) 20:20, 26 July 2018 (UTC)
  8. Support Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 01:29, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
  9. Support Dawid2009 (talk) 13:34, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
Oppose
Discuss
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
PASSED
6-0, removed. --Thi (talk) 16:54, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Remove Doctor Faustus (play)

Faust and Goethe's Faust are also listed. I think that Christopher Marlowe's play is not necessary at this level.

Support
  1. Support as nom. --Thi (talk) 16:05, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
  2. Support We do not need to have three articles on the Faust character. ―Susmuffin Talk 17:46, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
  3. Support Possibly only Goethe's Faust deserves to be on this level, we don't need two let alone three articles on the same thing. GuzzyG (talk) 19:08, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
  4. Support Too much overlap per above. Gizza (t)(c) 21:47, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
  5. Support User:CamHat000099 (talk) CamHat000099 (talk) 23:19, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
  6. Support --LaukkuTheGreit (Talk•Contribs) 07:59, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
Oppose
Discuss
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
PASSED
5-0, removed. --Thi (talk) 16:51, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Remove Stairway to Heaven

Probably not necessary at this level. There are other examples of rock music on the list and something must be removed.

Support
  1. Support as nom. --Thi (talk) 16:08, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
  2. Support We're over the limit in art and i think we list too many rock and roll songs already, the rankings of the song in the lede do not justify inclusion. GuzzyG (talk) 19:10, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
  3. Support 10 is probably a good target for modern musical works (currently at 13). Redundant to Led Zeppelin. Gizza (t)(c) 21:55, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
  4. Support We over-represent rock music on this list. ―Susmuffin Talk 22:01, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
  5. Support User:CamHat000099 (talk) CamHat000099 (talk) 23:19, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
Oppose
Discuss

I have found the Rolling Stone list that was mentioned in the article: Rolling Stone 2011. ―Susmuffin Talk 22:01, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
FAILED:

5-4, kept. feminist (talk) 07:20, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Remove Hermes

Having 12 Greek deities (+4 Roman deities) seems like a lot for this level (compared to the coverage of more modern religions), and Hermes feels the least essential of those listed. power~enwiki (π, ν) 20:29, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

Support
  1. as nom power~enwiki (π, ν) 20:29, 26 July 2018 (UTC)
  2. Support --Thi (talk) 05:43, 27 July 2018 (UTC)
  3. Support If Norse mythology only has three representatives, then Greek mythology should not have eighteen. Also, we are slightly over the quota in this section. ―Susmuffin Talk 06:45, 27 July 2018 (UTC)
  4. Support per above. Hermes isn't any more vital than Loki or Seth for example, neither of which are listed. Gizza (t)(c) 04:24, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
  5. Weak support not as culturally influential.  — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs)  06:17, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose One of the most notable deities. "Hermes was the emissary and messenger of the gods. Hermes was also "the divine trickster" and "the god of boundaries and the transgression of boundaries, ... the patron of herdsmen, thieves, graves, and heralds." He is described as moving freely between the worlds of the mortal and divine, and was the conductor of souls into the afterlife. He was also viewed as the protector and patron of roads and travelers. Dimadick (talk) 08:16, 27 July 2018 (UTC)
  2. Oppose Not the least vital Greek mythological figure listed. I agree with the general sentiment behind this proposal though. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 01:30, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
  3. Oppose - per Dimadick. Jusdafax (talk) 23:25, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
  4. Oppose, Hermes was an important Greek deity. Ares would be a better candidate for removal (from his own article: "Ares plays a relatively limited role in Greek mythology"). He was more important for the Romans.T8612 (talk) 11:26, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
Discuss
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
PASSED:

7-1, added. feminist (talk) 08:01, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Add Weekly Shōnen Jump

The best-selling and arguably most influential manga magazine. Plus, the list of magazines currently suffer from WP:BIAS as all are from the Western world and all but one are English-language, so something else should be added. feminist (talk) 11:14, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

Support
  1. Support as nominator. feminist (talk) 11:14, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
  2. Support At its prime it had a circulation of 6.53 million copies. After several years of decline, it still has a circulation of 1.9 million copies. Dimadick (talk) 16:08, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
  3. --RekishiEJ (talk) 16:00, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
  4. Support --Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 22:33, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
  5. Support User:CamHat000099 17:41, 21 July 2018 (UTC)
  6. Support per nom. Gizza (t)(c) 06:20, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
  7. Support, mostly because this is where a slew of rather influential mangas (e.g. Astro Boy and a million others have been serialized). Not saying there couldn't be something better, but for now I'm OK with this. We can have a swap down the road if need be. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 11:08, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose Most other magazines listed have had large cultural impact or are well known worldwide. The influence of manga has come from many different sources. I have contemplated to propose Nausicaä of the Valley of the Wind (manga). --Thi (talk) 07:03, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
    If any individual manga is to be proposed, there's many I'd choose over Nausicaä. Akira, Astro Boy come to mind, or even Dragon Ball or One Piece. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 22:20, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
Discuss
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
No consensus Gizza (t)(c) 00:53, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Remove Riot

Demonstration (protest) would be more vital article.

Support
  1. Support as nom. --Thi (talk) 08:21, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
Swap
  1. Swap with Civil disorder. Rreagan007 (talk) 16:19, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
Oppose
Discuss
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Vital_articles/Level/4/Archive_59&oldid=952688973"